DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite National Broker Associates, Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 119 P.3d 477.

38 citing documents.

  • Mahanti v. Fraser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mahanti v. Fraser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 39 (App. 2005).
  • Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Co., -80, ¶ 61 (App. 2010) (interpreting Rule 54(g)(2)); Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 38 (App. 2005) (concluding the court had discretion to consider an untimely attorneys’ fee application).
  • Agfd v. Scheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Agfd v. Scheeler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Nat'l Broker Associates, Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2005).
  • Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Co., ¶ 60 (App. 2010) (citing Nat'l Broker Assoc., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 38 (App. 2005)).
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    See Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.
  • Hitt v. Hitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hitt v. Hitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Nat’l Broker Assoc., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    SERONDE et al. v. BNSF/ (award of costs and attorney's fees to party not named on appeal); -51, ¶¶ 16-23 (App. 2007) (waiver of argument not raised in response to motion to dismiss); Nat'l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶¶ 27-28 (App. 2005) (court order requiring out-of-state witness to be deposed in Arizona); Hamm v. Y & M Enters., Inc., (lack of findings supporting award of costs and attorney's fees); Bayless Inv.
  • Chandler v. Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chandler v. Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Nat'l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., (“We will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal.”).
  • In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis 322 P.3d 157 Ariz. 2014
  • In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis 322 P.3d 157 Ariz. 2014
    v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., –18 ¶ 36, –85 (App. 2005).
  • Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    P. 54(b), 58(g); ¶ 9 , Nat’l. Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., -18, ¶¶ 31-38 , -85 (App.2005).
  • Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See also Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., -18, ¶¶ 35-36 , -85 (App.2005) (analyzing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (“Rule 54(b)”) and explaining that a judgment without Rule 54(b) language is not final when there are unresolved attorneys’ fees issues); Ariz. R. Fam.
  • Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Nat’l Broker Assoc., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30 , (explaining that generally "we will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal”).
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Rivas 250 P.3d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State Ex Rel. Horne v. Rivas 250 P.3d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30 , (“We will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal.”).
  • LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    Cf. Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., , (trial court does not abuse discretion “by summarily overruling objections to an untimely statement of costs”).
  • AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Nat'l Broker Assoc., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 38
  • Britt v. Steffen 205 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Britt v. Steffen 205 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    See Nat’l Broker Assoc., -18, ¶¶ 31-38 , -85 (App.2005) (recognizing that the amendments to Rules 54(b), 54(g), and 58(g) were “directly at odds” with appellant’s reliance on Mark Lighting II and Monti).
  • Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.
  • Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Mar-lyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30
  • Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Nat’l Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., ¶ 30