Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc., 88 P.3d 565.

62 citing documents.

AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
“In reviewing a decision on a motion for summary judgment, we determine de novo whether any genuine issues of fact exist and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc.
Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
But a statute of repose is intended “to establish a limit beyond which no suit may be pursued,” and “sets a period of time within which claims must be brought regardless of when the cause of action may accrue.” Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2006) (quoting Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 28 (App. 2004)).
Green v. Woolery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Green v. Woolery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cf. Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶¶ 20–22 (App. 2004) (holding that whether original homeowner’s observations of transient unevenness in the floors constituted discovery of soil-compaction defect was a question for the finder of fact).
Denboer v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denboer v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (defining statute of limitations as “a legislative enactment which sets maximum time periods during which certain actions can be brought”); Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 28 (App. 2004) (stating that Section 12-552 “sets a period of time within which claims must be brought regardless of when the cause of action may accrue”).
Rep Custom v. McBride Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rep Custom v. McBride Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 12-552(A); see also Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2004).
Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 24
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., 500, ¶¶ 14, 24, 570 (App. 2004).
Price v. City of Mesa 339 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Price v. City of Mesa 339 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., -500, ¶¶ 14-24, -70 (App. 2004).
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
The Statute of Repose Applies to Implied Warranty Claims ¶ 12 “Section 12-552 is a statute of repose that limits the time within which parties may bring breach of contract and implied warranty actions against developers, builders, and certain others.” Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 15 , *57 (App.2004).
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 2
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
20, 1989); see also Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 9, (noting that § 12-552(A) “limits the time within which parties may bring breach of contract and implied warranty actions against developers, builders, and certain others” (quoting Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 15, )).
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 2
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. City of Peona, ¶ 6 , (application of law to undisputed facts reviewed de novo); May-cock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 24 , (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo).
Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 2
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 7 , Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc.
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“In reviewing a decision on a motion for summary judgment, we determine de novo whether any genuine issues of fact exist and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 14
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000097 210 P.3d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000097 210 P.3d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 24
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc., ¶24
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 2
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶24 , Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 8 , 81 P.3d at 332 .
State v. Garcia 193 P.3d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Garcia 193 P.3d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶24
State v. Moore 189 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Moore 189 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., ¶ 24 , Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 8 , 81 P.3d at 332 .
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See id.; Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., (if statute’s “language is unambiguous, we give effect to the language and do not use other rules of statutory construction in its interpretation”).
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“[f]or breach of an oral or written employment contract including contract actions based on employee handbooks or policy manuals that do not specify a time period in which to bring an action.” When interpreting a statute, if its “language is unambiguous, we give effect to the language and do not use other rules of statutory construction in its interpretation.” Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., US West Commc’ns