Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Molever v. Roush, 732 P.2d 1105.

33 citing documents.

Rose v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(motions not ruled upon “were therefore denied by operation of law”); n.1 (App. 1986).
Cannabis v. Fennemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cannabis v. Fennemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(quotation and citation omitted).
Harren v. Armenta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harren v. Armenta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Florez, 185 Ariz. at 526
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We will affirm a grant of summary judgment when an appellant has not shown per the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that “there exists evidence of genuine issues for trial,” and when the trial court was correct for any reason—either argued below or supported by the evidence, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001).
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[T]he question of causation is one of fact for a jury except in those instances where no reasonable persons could disagree.”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
The motion to reopen was therefore frivolous because the grounds it alleged were “indisputably without merit.”
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We will affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment when an appellant has not shown “there exists evidence of genuine issues for trial,” and when the trial court was correct for any reason argued below and supported by the record, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (“We may affirm summary judgment even if the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason.”) (citation omitted).
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
I. ¶ 10 An attorney-malpractice claim based on the lawyer’s allegedly negligent acts or omissions in the litigation context essentially requires analysis of “ ‘the case within the ease.’” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , -75 , -13 (App.1986).
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(“[ijssues resolved by the finder of fact, whether judge or jury, during the underlying action are likewise resolved by the finder of fact in the subsequent malpractice action; issues of law resolved by the court in the underlying action are likewise resolved by the court in the s
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This doctrine holds that an attorney will not be held liable “for a mistake in a point of law that has not been settled by the highest court of the jurisdiction and upon which reasonable lawyers may differ.”
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Northern Contracting Company, 117 Ariz. at 377 , 573 P.2d at 68
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In support of that contention
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Appellate courts traditionally use their authority to impose sanctions under rule 25 with “great reservation.” See
Phillips v. Clancy 733 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Phillips v. Clancy 733 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986