Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service, 745 P.2d 966.

43 citing documents.

Harden v. Cplc Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Harden v. Cplc Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cordero v. Hazlitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Joel Erik Thompson, ¶ 20 (App. 1998); n.4 (App. 1995); n.1A (App. 1987).
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
( n.1A (App. 1987)); Ariz. R. Civ.
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
7 MCDONALD v. MCDONALD Decision of the Court generally ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (providing that an argument must contain citations “to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”); n.1A (App. 1987) (declining to consider assertions unsupported by record evidence).
Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Joel Erik Thompson, ¶ 20, n.4, n.4 (App. 1995); n.1A, n.1A (App. 1987).
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See ARCAP 13(a)(6) (an argument shall contain citations to the parts of the record relied upon); , 221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987) (declining to consider assertions unsupported by record evidence).
Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, (“‘Generally the “facts” which the trial court will consider as “admissible in evidence” in ruling on a motion for summary judgment are those which are set forth in an affidavit or deposition; an unsworn and unproven assertion in a memorandum is not such a fact.’”), n.1A, n.1A (App. 1987).
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra 32 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra 32 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
“Generally, the ‘facts’ which the trial court will consider as ‘admissible in evidence’ in ruling on a motion for summary judgment are those which are set forth in an affidavit or a deposition; an unsworn and unproven assertion in a memorandum is not such a fact.” , 221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987).
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987) (citing Rule 56(e)); see also Uniform Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Arizona, Rule IV(f); accord Wright & Miller, supra § 1365, at 481; id.
Wollenberg v. Phoenix Leasing Inc. 893 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wollenberg v. Phoenix Leasing Inc. 893 P.2d 4 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court will generally consider “facts” as “admissible in evidence” when set forth in an affidavit or a deposition; unsworn and unproven assertions are not “facts.” , 221 n. 1A, , 967 n. 1A (App.1987).
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
of Treasury Dept., , 221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987); Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town and Country Shopping Center Co., Ltd.
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987) (an unsworn and unproven assertion in memorandum is not fact); Cimino v. Alway, 18 Ariz.App.
Sears Consumer Financial Corp. v. Thunderbird Products 802 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sears Consumer Financial Corp. v. Thunderbird Products 802 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
220 n. 1, , 967 n. 1 (App.1987).
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
221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987).
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
220 n. 1, , 967 n. 1 (App.1987).
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Department of Real Estate 793 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Novak v. State 792 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Novak v. State 792 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990