Cited by

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

216 citing documents.

Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Moreover, there was no evidence regarding the amount of reduction in principal or any increased value of the marital residence at any time consider new arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.” ¶ 91 (App. 2007).
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, “[a] conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence through the nature of the acts, the relationship of the parties, the interests of the conspirators, or other circumstances.” ¶ 53
Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
established by showing that the tortfeasor made a false and material representation, with knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, with intent that the hearer would act upon the representation in a reasonably contemplated manner, and that the hearer, ignorant of the falsity of the representation, rightfully relied upon the representation and was thereby damaged.” ¶ 26 (App. 2007) (emphasis omitted) (footnote omitted).
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
But “[w]e will not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief.”
Ernie Luna Jr. v. Pima County and Tristar Risk Management 341 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Ernie Luna Jr. v. Pima County and Tristar Risk Management 341 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See Stenz, 336 P.3d at 743; (“An award of prejudgment interest serves the dual purpose of recompensing the victim and deterring defendants from dilatory litigation tactics.”).
Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Charles W. Stenz v. City of Tucson and Pinnacle Risk Management Services 336 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Charles W. Stenz v. City of Tucson and Pinnacle Risk Management Services 336 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“An award of prejudgment interest serves the dual purpose of recompensing the victim and deterring defendants from dilatory litigation tactics.”).
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 91 , see also McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coal.
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-99, ¶¶ 35-36, -49 (App. 2007).
Quicken Loan v. Beale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Quicken Loan v. Beale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, n.11, ¶ 40, n.11 (App. 2007) (“By not raising the issue in their opening briefs, Appellants have waived [the issue] on appeal.”).
TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp. 323 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp. 323 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We review jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury has been given the proper rule of law to apply when coming to a decision.” ¶ 63, (citation omitted).
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.11, ¶ 40, n.11 (App. 2007).
Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health Alliance 307 P.3d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health Alliance 307 P.3d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
2 Statute of Limitations ¶7 Wyckoff next contends the trial court erred in finding her claims time barred.
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
Title Agency, ¶¶ 44–46, (breach of fiduciary duty); ¶¶ 49-50, 16 (App. 2007) (fraud).
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
100 n. 11, ¶ 40, , 1050 n. 11 (App.2007) (noting that arguments not raised in appellant’s opening brief are waived).
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
aim requires proof that the defendant made “a false and material representation, with knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, with intent that the hearer would act upon the representation in a reasonably contemplated manner,” and that the plaintiff, “ignorant of the falsity of the representation, rightfully relied upon the representation and was thereby damaged.” ¶ 26
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 37 , *129 1049 (App.2007).
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Chappell v. Wenholz 247 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Chappell v. Wenholz 247 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
a (1979); see also Mein, 219 Ariz. at 100, ¶ 19 , 193 P.3d at 794 (concluding evidence that drivers revved engines at a stoplight and bantered supports finding of agreement to race); ¶ 53 , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 cmt.
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Standard Chartered PLC, 190 Ariz. at 27 , 945 P.2d at 328; , 99 n. 10, ¶ 38, , 1049 n. 10 (App. 2007) (concluding appellants’ failure to file motion for JMOL challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a recovery theory precluded appellants from raising that issue in a post-verdict motion for JMOL).