Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dawson v. Withycombe, 163 P.3d 1034.

216 citing documents.

McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Durbin v. Keller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Durbin v. Keller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holcomb v. American Valet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶16 We review the denial of a motion for new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of evidence for an abuse of discretion.2 ¶ 25 (App. 2007).
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Dawson v. Withycombe , , 106, ¶ 67, , 1056 (App. 2007) (citing McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coal.
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
No. 97, (“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived.” (citations omitted)); ¶ 91, (“We will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.” (citation omitted)).
Tauscher v. Hanshew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tauscher v. Hanshew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District 387 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District 387 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We generally do not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief, ¶ 91 (App. 2007), nor do we speculate about facts that might entitle Coombs to relief, see Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins.
Shubhrananda v. Earle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shubhrananda v. Earle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
answer that “plaintiff [is] practicing psychotherapy and ministerial s[er]v[i]c[e]s without a l[i]cense; has criminal history; no billing presented; coercion & intimidation used, and more” are “most certainly factual allegations.” Because Earle did not raise these arguments in his opening brief, “[w]e will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.” ¶91, ( ).
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Villa v. Villa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Villa v. Villa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Our case law treats a motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence as a pre-requisite to a later motion for [judgment as a matter of law].”); ¶ 38 n.10, n.10 (App. 2007) (stating that the appellants could not raise a sufficiency of the evidence argument for the first time in a post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law because they did not file a pre-judgment motion for judgment).
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.11, ¶ 40 (App. 2007) (stating that “an issue preserved on appeal, but not argued in an appellant’s opening brief, is waived”).
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–08, ¶ 72 (App. 2007); see also Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2014) (enumerating the elements of common law fraud).
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(argument not raised in opening brief waived).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Owners Ass’n, n.5, ¶ 15 (App. 2016) (-01 (1994)); Summers v. Gloor, --- P.3d ---, *5 n.6, ¶ 20 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 91 (App. 2007)).
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“In those cases in which no demand has been made on the defendants, the prejudgment interest is calculated from the time the complaint was filed.” ¶ 100 (App. 2007).
Swartz v. Co II Velo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Swartz v. Co II Velo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mtr Builders v. Jahan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mtr Builders v. Jahan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lambesis v. Lambesis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See ARCAP 13(c); ¶ 91 (App. 2007) (refusing to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal).
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 50 (App. 2007); Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters 9 SHOEMAKE et al. v. ESTANCIA Decision of the Court and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr.
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 91 , (“We will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.”) ( , ).