Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 408 P.2d 849.

66 citing documents.

Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
11 (stating that issue preclusion does not apply when “there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate” ()).
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“Principles of issue preclusion should not be applied, however, where ‘there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’ ”) ( , ).
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Courts will not apply issue preclusion “where 'there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’ ” , , , (courts will not apply issue preclusion where “special circumstances” exist).
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Res judicata ¶13 “Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S. Ct. 970, 973 (1979)
Hullett v. Cousin 63 P.3d 1029 Ariz. 2003
Hullett v. Cousin 63 P.3d 1029 Ariz. 2003
(“Principles of issue preclusion should not be applied, however, where ‘there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’”) (quoting Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 2 Ariz. App. 329, 332, ).
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
and Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct.
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
“The doctrine of res judicata binds the same parties standing in the same capacity in the subsequent litigation on the same cause of action, not only upon the facts actually litigated, but also upon those points which might have been (even though not expressly) litigated.”
Matter of Estate of Kopely 767 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Matter of Estate of Kopely 767 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Harris v. Curtis 708 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Harris v. Curtis 708 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Ferris v. Hawkins 660 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ferris v. Hawkins 660 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Principles of issue preclusion should not be applied, however, where “there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.”
Clugston v. Moore 655 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Clugston v. Moore 655 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Barassi v. Matison 656 P.2d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Barassi v. Matison 656 P.2d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture 628 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
This application of collateral estoppel is allowed in Arizona, Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State; , the main reason being that once a party has had his day in court and lost, he does not get a second chance against a different party on the same claim.
Vance v. Vance 601 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Vance v. Vance 601 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Simkins v. Pulley 569 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
the Court of Appeals held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be raised in a second action by a party who was a stranger to the first judgment.
Martin v. Althoff 557 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Martin v. Althoff 557 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Moore Drug Company, supra; P.2d 849 (1965).
Krumtum v. Burton 532 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1975
Krumtum v. Burton 532 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1975
While it is true that the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be raised by a party in a second action who was not a party to the first action, , the doctrine of collateral estoppel is limited to cases wherein the same issue raised in the subsequent action was actually litigated and determined in the prior suit.
Spur Feeding Co. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA CTY. 505 P.2d 1377 Ariz. 1973
Spur Feeding Co. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA CTY. 505 P.2d 1377 Ariz. 1973
Generally, there must be mutuality, not only of the parties, but of the issues to invoke the doctrine of res judicata.”
Bates v. Mallamo 504 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bates v. Mallamo 504 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
109 , , Day v. Wiswall’s Estate
Read v. City of Scottsdale 489 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1971
Read v. City of Scottsdale 489 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1971
Realty Exchange Corp. v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 487 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Realty Exchange Corp. v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. 487 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Backora v. Balkin 485 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Backora v. Balkin 485 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Application of Stone 481 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Application of Stone 481 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
468 , Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, *112