Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sobol v. Marsh, 130 P.3d 1000.

32 citing documents.

CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Slawson v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Slawson v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Patterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Alulddin v. Alfartousi 532 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Alulddin v. Alfartousi 532 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶¶ 1-2 (App. 2013) (affirming dismissal of a complaint for defamation and false light invasion of privacy at the motion to dismiss stage); ¶ 14 (App. 2006) (defamation); AMCOR Inv.
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 7 (App. 2006) (“[A] Party cannot argue on appeal legal issues and arguments that have not been specifically presented to the trial court.”).
Wing v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wing v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Okland v. Zurn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Okland v. Zurn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.4, ¶ 6 (App. 2006) (“[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”).
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.4, ¶ 6, n.4 (App. 2006) (noting that “absent exceptional circumstances, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”) Even without the Lieberman evidence, the jury evaluated Laura’s case because both Laura and Dr. Titcher testified.
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Therefore, ¶ 7, (party generally cannot argue legal issues on appeal not specifically presented to superior court (citation omitted)).
Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 7 , (“As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues and arguments that have not been specifically presented to the trial court.”).
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
"As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues and arguments that have not been specifically presented to the trial court.” ¶ 7
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Similarly, the assertedly defamatory statements were found, respectively, in complaints to the State Bar of Arizona and to the Board of Legal Document Preparers.5 ¶15 Here, however, Chilton did not sue CBD for the statements it had made to the USFS during the appeal process, b
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc.
Sobol v. Alarcon 131 P.3d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Alarcon 131 P.3d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006