Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith, 803 P.2d 900.

34 citing documents.

Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (negligent misrepresentation); (intentional misrepresentation); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., (common law fraud); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., –49 (App. 1984) (constructive fraud).
Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[I]f a party neglects to take either action, ‘a trial court does not err in proceeding to rule on a motion for summary judgment.’” ¶ 30 (App. 2008) ().
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Absent a Rule 56(d) request, the superior court “does not err in proceeding to rule on a motion for summary judgment.”
state/ador v. Wendtland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
state/ador v. Wendtland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Where parties have had an ample opportunity to request a continuance until discovery is completed but fail to make such a request, summary judgment will not be reversed on the grounds that it was granted prematurely.”).
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 30 (App. 2008) ( and Heuisler v. Phx.
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶10 The purpose of Rule 11, and by extension Rule 31, is “to discourage wasteful, costly litigation battles by mandatory sanctions where the position of the lawyer will not support a sound basis in law or fact justifying the position asserted.” (emphasis added).
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
(Rule 11 sanctions “mandatory”); see also Cal X-Tra, 6A different attorney was substituted as counsel for the state on appeal.
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
However, if a party neglects to take either action, “a trial court does not err in proceeding to rule on a motion for summary judgment.”
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
12 (finding on appeal that trial court improperly granted summary judgment indicates claim or defense not frivolous).
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
For the remainder of the common-law fraud elements, see
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(court reverses Rule 11 sanctions because trial court did not make specific findings justifying its conclusion that party’s claims were frivolous, relying on Richey , and because existence of disputed facts at time of summary judgment hearing indicated that party’s claim was “well-grounded”).