DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

34 citing documents.

  • Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (“As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues and arguments that have not been specifically presented to the trial court.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for
  • Constantine v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (“As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues and arguments that have not been specifically presented to the trial court.”).
  • 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