DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc., 91 P.3d 1019.

60 citing documents.

  • PINEDA v. TAYLOR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • PINEDA v. TAYLOR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (“Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.”).
  • Canon v. Retail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Canon v. Retail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (this court considers an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
  • Ngaruiya v. Az Dept. of Housing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Ngaruiya v. Az Dept. of Housing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 4 NGARUIYA v. AZ DEPT. OF HOUSING, et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (saying court usually will consider an issue not raised in opening brief as waived).
  • Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (noting that courts generally treat issues “not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.” (citations omitted)).5 C. Stefanie Is Not Entitled to Relief on Her Challenge to the Court’s FOF/COL.
  • Murtagian v. Entity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Murtagian v. Entity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) ("Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant's opening brief as abandoned or conceded."); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Rosenberg v. Conzoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (“Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.”).
  • Laney v. Springerville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Laney v. Springerville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., –80 ¶¶ 6, 13 (App. 2004) (finding jurisdiction when the trial court dismissed without prejudice but refused to grant leave to amend).
  • S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (this court considers an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded).
  • Perez v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Perez v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (this court considers an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded), and has thus failed to rebut the presumption that the court properly reviewed for apportionment, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (appellate courts presume the trial court kno
  • Hoyer v. Dougherty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Hoyer v. Dougherty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is correct for the wrong reason.”).
  • Michelle D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Michelle D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    v. Lincoln Fndtn., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (“Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.”).
  • Nrz v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Nrz v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004).
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Whitman v. Whitman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (explaining that issues not raised in an opening brief are considered abandoned and waived).
  • Desert Financial v. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Desert Financial v. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004).
  • J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard 431 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard 431 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004)).
  • Jasso v. Jasso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jasso v. Jasso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (“Generally, we will consider an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.”); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
  • Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004)).
  • Sampson K., Victoria Y. v. Dcs, F.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sampson K., Victoria Y. v. Dcs, F.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2004).
  • Kahn v. Arizona Cvs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kahn v. Arizona Cvs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    v. Lincoln Found., ¶ 17, as amended (July 9, 2004) (stating appellate court generally considers issues not raised in the opening brief to be abandoned or conceded).
  • Mirchandani v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mirchandani v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004) (citation omitted).
  • Bank of Ny v. St. John Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Bank of Ny v. St. John Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15 , (standing).
  • Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    4 See Schalkenbach Found., v. Lincoln Found., Inc., -81, ¶¶ 18-20 , -24 (App.2004); -81, ¶¶ 32-34 , -03 (App.1998) (holding availability of special action review rendered a contempt order sufficiently final to be accorded preclusive effect in a subsequent action).
  • Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 17
  • Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    v. Lincoln Found., Inc., ¶ 15