DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley, 57 P.3d 726.

32 citing documents.

  • Ortiz v. Rambo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Ortiz v. Rambo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Health for Life Brands, ¶ 28 (App. 2002).
  • Ali v. Ali 509 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Ali v. Ali 509 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Glover, 231 Ariz. at 3, ¶ 8 (citing Health for Life Brands, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2002)).
  • Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “[A] state court’s power to proceed following remand from federal court is so akin to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction as to warrant application of the same rule of non- waiver.” See Health for Life Brands, –39, ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
  • Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Health for Life Brands, ¶ 28 (App. 2002).
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    However, “challenges to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal.” Health for Life Brands, ¶ 12 (App. 2002).
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Health for Life Brands, ¶ 31 (App. 2002) (holding party waives jury trial right by not filing timely demand, even where other party filed jury trial demand later withdrawn).
  • Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Health For Life Brands, ¶ 11 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).
  • Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    8 Nevertheless, the issue of a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, Health For Life Brands, ¶¶ 11-12 , and parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court if it is lacking, Sw.
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the denial *216 of a motion for new trial.” Health For Life Brands, ¶ 28
  • AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    The notion that such arguments can never be waived applies “only when the appellant timely appeals from the underlying appealable order or judgment, but has failed to raise [the argument] below.” , 264 n. 13, ¶ 38, , 1248 n. 13 (App.2009) (citing Health for Life Brands, ¶ 12 , and Butler Prods.
  • Ekvall v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ekvall v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶15 Although subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, see Health for Life Brands, ¶¶ 11- 12, Father’s argument does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Balazic v. Balazic 334 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Balazic v. Balazic 334 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Health For Life Brands, ¶¶ 11-12 , (recognizing that procedural defects may be waived if no objection is timely raised, whereas a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived).
  • Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Health for Life Brands, ¶¶ 11-12 , (recognizing that while party can waive procedural defects it never waives challenge to court’s subject matter jurisdiction).
  • Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Health For Life Brands, ¶ 12
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (arguments raised for first time on appeal are waived); see also Health for Life Brands, (challenges to procedures waived if not raised in trial court).