Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn, 805 P.2d 1012.

165 citing documents.

Francis v. Purk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“The burden of persuasion on [a] summary judgment motion is heavy” and “‘[w]here the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.’” Nat’l
Moore v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Bank & Trust v. James R. Barrons Trust 351 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Bank & Trust v. James R. Barrons Trust 351 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glic v. Northview Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
If the evidence would allow “a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.”
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Servs., ¶ 20 , (“Absent a showing that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion need not even respond, and the failure to respond cannot in itself entitle the moving party to summary judgment.”)
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
195, , 1016 (App. 1990).
Oliver v. Henry 260 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Oliver v. Henry 260 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
of Regents, , ); , (recognizing that although our review of a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is made on the basis of the record made in the trial court, our review is de novo).
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim 193 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim 193 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
use[d by the superior court when] ruling on the summary judgment motion.” Id.
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
If the evidence would allow “a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.”
Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
Butch Randolph & Associates, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance 136 P.3d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Butch Randolph & Associates, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance 136 P.3d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(citing Chanay, 115 Ariz. at 38 , 563 P.2d at 293 ); ¶ 21 , (stating that Rule 7.1(b) "is not mandatory, and the failure to respond does not in and of itself authorize a judgment against the nonmoving party if the motion fa
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 1012 (App. 1990) (party opposing summary judgment must respond with facts showing genuine issue if movant offers evidence demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment); (“Ordinarily, courts should not consider new factual theories raised for th
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 52 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by