Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., 63 P.3d 1040.

27 citing documents.

Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Arizona courts will apply the law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual relationship as long as the chosen law has some nexus with the parties or the contract.” Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., ¶ 9 (App. 2003); (“When the parties choose the law of a particular state to govern their contractual relationship and the chosen law has some nexus with the parties or the contract, that law will generally be applied.”).
In re Cotter 425 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
In re Cotter 425 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Cf. Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. , , ¶ 24, (policy issues best handled by legislatures due to orientation toward public input and debate).
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winsor v. Glasswerks Phx, LLC, ¶ 6
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 20, 26, -64 (2001) (“[W]e consistently have recognized the power of the legislature to retain or confer immunity where appropriate.”); Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., (legislature better positioned to address policy concerns than courts); see also Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt.
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., -07, ¶¶ 9-10, -44 (App. 2003) (claims arising out of tort usually governed by forum state, although choice of law provision may apply if resolution of claims requires interpretation of contract (citations omitted)).
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Win-sor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., ¶ 24 , (some policy issues are “best handled by legislatures with their comprehensive ma *436 chinery for public input and debate”).
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
However, the rule is not jurisdictional, and this court has discretion to consider a new argument on appeal when the issue is one of statewide importance, Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., n. 3, ¶ 20 , n. 3 (App.2003), or if adoption of a legal principle “will expedite enforcement of a right or redress an injustice.” n. 3 , n. 3 (App.1996).
Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. 189 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. 189 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., ¶ 25 , (specifically declining to expand tort liability of successor corporations as “the policy of successor liability in Arizona should not be determined by an evaluation of one case presented for judicial review, but by a thorough consideration of the broader social policies and
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Winsor v. Glasswerks Phx, L.L.C., ¶ 15
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., ¶¶ 28-30, -49 (App. 2003).
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
591 ¶ 33, Winsor v. Glasswerks Phx, L.L.C., , 310-11 ¶¶ 24-25, -48 (App.2003).
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
the courts must base their decisions on the law as it appears in the constitution and statutes.”); Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., ¶ 23 , (when the “core issue is one of policy for the legislature” we “defer to the legislature in its representative capacity”).
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003