Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC., 212 P.3d 17.
-
State v. Perez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2009) (mandate).
-
State of Arizona v. Dave Allen Laporte
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Co., (trial court must strictly follow appellate mandate); Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., (“[T]rial court may not consider on remand matters decided by an appellate court.”).
- Ford v. Erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Ford v. Erickson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., Inc., -33, ¶ 24 (App. 2009).
- In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Agricann v. Natural Remedy
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., ¶ 30 (App. 2009) (citing Molloy, 181 Ariz. at 149).
- Barreras v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Barreras v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., ¶ 25, n.10 (App. 2009) (citing Pepsi-Cola Metro.
- Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Hobson v. Chen
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., Inc., (quoting cases).
- Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Sloan v. Farmers
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., argues that because this court’s decision in Sloan I did not explicitly disturb the trial court’s conclusion that Farmers relied on an arson defense, this court implicitly affirmed that conclusion and, under Bogard, the second judge had no authority to revisit it.
- Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Arik v. Rgo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., Inc., ¶ 26 (App. 2009).
- Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Danko v. Danko
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., (providing that questions that could have been raised on the first appeal cannot be presented or considered on a later appeal).
- Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Schenk v. Casebolt II
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., Inc., ¶ 20 (App. 2009).
- Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Snell v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Snell v. Martin
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., Inc., ¶ 42 (App. 2009) ().
- Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Hernandez v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Hernandez v. Hernandez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., Inc., ¶ 24 (App. 2009) (appellant’s failure to challenge a ruling in his first appeal meant that the ruling was affirmed by implication and could not be challenged in second appeal).
- Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Quam v. Grove
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., ¶ 20 (App. 2009) ( and Brown v. U.S. Fid.
- Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Manola v. Espinoza
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., Inc., ¶ 30 (App. 2009).
- Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Flynn v. Rodrick
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., -36, ¶ 39 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
- Manzo v. Hayman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Manzo v. Hayman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Jacobson v. Jacobson-Boettcher
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., -36, ¶ 39, -28 (App. 2009) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
- Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Walsh v. Walsh
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., –33, ¶ 24, –25 (App. 2009) (appeals from judgment may not be taken piecemeal; issues that could have been raised on first appeal, but were not, cannot be presented on a later appeal).
- Sands v. bill/zinkel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Sands v. bill/zinkel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., Inc., - 33, ¶ 24, -25 (App. 2009) (citations omitted) (rulings not challenged on appeal considered final and implicitly affirmed).
- Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co., Inc., n.7, n.7 (App. 2009) (discussing judicial policy of not reopening previously decided questions), Kader claimed that, under Sonora law, the implied covenant encompasses a duty to mitigate and asserted the issue thus was relevant to the question of damages.
- 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
Co., ¶ 24 , (holding that rulings not challenged on appeal are implicitly affirmed); ¶ 11 , (concluding that trial court ruling not challenged on appeal is law of the case).