Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., 62 P.3d 966.

71 citing documents.

Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 10 (App. 2003).
Anderson v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Anderson v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Cf. Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 20 (App. 2003) (“[A] vacated judgment cannot have any collateral estoppel effect.”); Bank of Am.
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Issue preclusion applies when “(1) the issue was actually litigated in the previous proceeding, (2) the parties had a full and fair opportunity and motive to litigate the issue, (3) a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, (4) resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, and (5) there is common identity of the parties.” Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
Krivulka v. Lerner/krivulka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Krivulka v. Lerner/krivulka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Pima Cnty., –57, ¶ 9 (2019); Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Magellan v. Hon. duncan/dearing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Magellan v. Hon. duncan/dearing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DUNCAN/DEARING Opinion of the Court question of law); Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (issue preclusion is question of law).
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (noting that issue preclusion binds a party to a previously rendered decision).
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (App. 2009); Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wheeler v. Deutsche Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(citing Standage, 114 Ariz. at 484, and Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 10 (App. 2003)).
Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., ¶¶ 9–10 (App. 2003) (citing Garcia v. Gen.
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 20 (App. 2003) ("[A] vacated judgment cannot have any collateral estoppel effect.").
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (quoting Hartford Accident & Indem.
South Point Energy Center, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 382 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
South Point Energy Center, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 382 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 8
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. SCZ Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Campbell v. SCZ Props., Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶11 On appeal, we review summary judgment and questions of law de novo, ¶¶ 5, 7 (App. 2000), including the application of issue preclusion which is a question of law, see Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., ¶ 8 (App. 2003) 5 VAZIRANI et al. v. ANNEXUS et al. Decision of the Court (issue preclusion reviewed de novo).
Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
ous lawsuit if the following factors are satisfied: (1) the issue was actually litigated in the previous proceeding, (2) the parties had a full and fair opportunity and motive to litigate the issue, (3) a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, (4) resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, and (5) there is common identity of the parties.” Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., ¶ 9
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Campbell v. SLZ Properties, Ltd., ¶ 9
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9, (holding that collateral estoppel requires, among other things, a final decision on the merits).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 , (explaining that, for issue preclusion to apply, the parties must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in a previous lawsuit).
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶¶ 9-10
Clusiau v. Clusiau Enterprises, Inc. 236 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010