Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, 180 P.3d 977.

165 citing documents.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Under Rule 56(e), it is the party moving for summary judgment who bears the “burden of persuasion.” Nat’l ¶ 15
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fagerlie v. MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO., INC. 258 P.3d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fagerlie v. MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO., INC. 258 P.3d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Nat’l -16, ¶ 16 , -81 (App.2008).
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
To obtain summary judgment, "the moving party must come forward with evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor.” ¶ 14
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
‘[Wjhere the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.’ Further, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.” Nat’l ¶ 17 , (internal citations omitted).
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Vig v. Nix Project II Partnership 212 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Vig v. Nix Project II Partnership 212 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007