DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Horton v. Mitchell, 29 P.3d 870.

32 citing documents.

  • Nickerson v. Nickerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Nickerson v. Nickerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    (court of appeals presumes trial court found all facts necessary to support ruling and must affirm if reasonable construction of the evidence justifies decision).
  • Brown v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Gardner v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    When neither party requests findings of fact and the superior court does not make specific findings of fact, “we must assume that the superior court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.” ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Luvisi v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    see also ARCAP 11(c); ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (“When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.”) (internal quotation
  • Collins v. Glick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ARCAP 11(c); ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (“When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.”) (internal quotation
  • State v. Lohse 431 P.3d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See Horton v. Mitchell , , ¶ 13
  • Gohr v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 13 (App. 2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (“The misapplication of the law to undisputed facts is an example of an abuse of discretion.”).
  • Matthews v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 8 (App. 1998) (); ¶ 13 (App. 2001).
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Pinnacle Peak v. Ramioulle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2001) (citing dictionary definition of "structure" in interpreting a restrictive covenant)
  • Black v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -29, -79 (1985); ¶ 13, (superior court “abuse[s] its discretion by misapplying the law”).
  • Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “When there is no request for findings and the [family] court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the [family] court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.” ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (last alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.” ¶ 13, (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Sec., ¶ 34, ¶ 13, (stating that when the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, “we ‘must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision’”) (internal citations omit
  • Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ¶ 13 , (When the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, “we ‘must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.’ ”) (internal citations omitted); In th
  • College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 16 , (concluding that roadway is a structure within the ordinary meaning of the word).
  • Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “Deed restrictions constitute ‘a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.’ ” ¶ 7 , ( ¶ 8 , , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Timothy Christopher Haight-Gyuro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (reviewing court assumes trial court found facts necessary to support ruling).
  • Wilson v. Playa De Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶7 Deed restrictions constitute “‘a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.’” quoting Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, 177 Ariz. 2 The copy of the Declaration in the record does not contain a proper signature and notary’s acknowledgment.
  • John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Kocher, 206 Ariz. at 482, ¶ 9 , 80 P.3d at 289 ; ¶ 13
  • Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 14 A restrictive provision much like section 4
  • State Ex Rel. Goddard v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 75 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park Homeowners Ass'n 75 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Such a restriction constitutes “a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” ¶ 8 , (quoting Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , ).
  • Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
    526 ¶ 13, , 873 ¶ 13 (App.2001).
  • GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    526, ¶ 12, , 873 (App.2001).
  • Widoff v. Wiens 45 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ¶ 13 , (“When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.”) (