Cited by

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006) (observing that “[g]enerally, we do not consider arguments on appeal that were raised for the first time at the trial court in a motion for reconsideration”).

See, e.g., Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 2011); Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –41 ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2006).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006) (“Generally we do not consider arguments on appeal that were raised for the first time at the trial court in a motion for reconsideration.”).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –41, ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2006) (an issue raised for the first time after trial is deemed to have been waived).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –41, ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2016).

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)).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –42, ¶¶ 19–20 (App. 2006) (holding that a party seeking equitable indemnity must be free from negligence).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006) (“Generally we do not consider arguments on appeal that were raised for the first time at the trial court in a motion for reconsideration.”).

¶20 Moreover, common law indemnity is an equitable claim based on an obligation of “one party to make good a loss or damage another party has incurred.” Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., -42, ¶¶ 18-20 (App. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Masaryk v. Mendolsohn Constr.

¶36 On appeal, we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration because “the prevailing party below is routinely deprived of the opportunity to fairly respond.” Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006).

Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2006).

Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006).

Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –41 ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2006).

¶16 KnightBrook also relies on Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., contending that although Evans does not cite § 78, it applies its principles.

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc. , , 240, ¶ 15, , 550 (App. 2006) (citing Union Rock & Materials Corp. v. Scottsdale Conference Ctr.

The transactional nature of the other agreements listed in subsection (F) suggests that subsection (A) should apply to “breach of contract and implied warranty actions against developers, builders, and certain others.” Albano, 227 Ariz. at 126 ¶ 19, 254 P.3d at 365 (quoting Evans Wythecombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 9, ).

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 20, (“The extent of a contractual duty to indemnify ‘must be determined from the contract.’” (quoting INA Ins.

Instead, as they acknowledge, they raised this argument for the first time in their “Motion for Reconsideration Re: August 25, 2014 Ruling Re: Attorneys’ Fees Awarded in Favor of Varilek.” We generally do not consider arguments on appeal that were first raised in the trial court in a motion for reconsideration, Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., -41 n.5, ¶¶ 15-16, -51 n.5 (App. 2006), and we decline to do so here.

resumably considered the argument on its merits); -38, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (noting that we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration because the “prevailing party below is routinely deprived of the opportunity to fairly respond”) (quoting Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2006)).

§ 12-552: “‘to establish a limit beyond which no suit may be pursued.’” Albano, 227 Ariz. at 127, ¶ 24 (quoting Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2006)).

See, e.g., Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9, see also Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., -41 ¶¶ 15-16, -51 (App. 2006) (holding argument relating to claim was waived where first raised in motion to reconsider).

“An absurd result is one ‘so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.’” Evans Withycomb, quoting Estrada, 34 P.3d at 360.

See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15