Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., 159 P.3d 547.

70 citing documents.

Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(generally, arguments raised for first time in motion for reconsideration not considered on appeal in part because prevailing party below may be deprived of opportunity to fairly respond), citing Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc.
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
/s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc.
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., 207 Ariz.
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 1115
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
See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., ¶ 15
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
"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 Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc.
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., ¶ 12 , (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.”) ( ¶ 17 , ).
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., *490 ¶ 15 , (court of appeals generally does not consider arguments raised for first time on a motion for reconsideration to the trial court).