Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 177 P.3d 867.

50 citing documents.

Saguaro v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Saguaro v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of Am., Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (declining to address arguments that “were not the basis of the trial court’s ruling and were either not raised or not fully developed before the trial court.”).
Marsh v. Atkins 536 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Marsh v. Atkins 536 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008).
In Re Delinquency of A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Delinquency of A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008) (stating that when interpreting statutes, the court looks to the plain language of the statute as the best indicator of legislative intent); cf. A.R.S.
Concetta Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Living LLC 492 P.3d 1031 Ariz. 2021
Concetta Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Living LLC 492 P.3d 1031 Ariz. 2021
Mathews v. Life Care Cntrs of Am., Inc., ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (holding that “a victim of elder abuse pursuant to APSA would not be deprived of the remedies specified by the legislature simply because that case is resolved using arbitration”).
Pima County v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pima County v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008).
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
of Am., ¶ 21 (App. 2008).
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Of Am., Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (declining to address arguments that "were not the basis of the trial court's ruling and were either not raised or not fully developed before the trial court").
In Re the Guardianship and Conservatorship Of: Robert Sommer 386 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Guardianship and Conservatorship Of: Robert Sommer 386 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
of Am., Inc., (plain language best indicator of legislative intent); (“When the legislature adopted the UPC in 1973, it concurrently amended § 12-2101(J) to remove this list of interlocutory appealable orders and inst
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Lawall v. Rr Robertson 353 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lawall v. Rr Robertson 353 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6, ( n.4, n.4 (App. 1984) (“An issue first raised in a reply brief will not be considered on appeal.”) (citations omitted).
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abromovitz v. Red Eyed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6, (citation omitted).
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 , (holding court looks first to the plain language of a statute to discern legislative intent).
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ¶ 9 , and argue that it stands for the proposition that arbitration is "a means to resolve a civil action,” and therefore, arbitration is a type of action.
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Smith v. Pinnamaneni 254 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
of Am., Inc., ¶ 9 , and therefore, procedurally, W Inc.’s licensing status was “ripe” for adjudication in the arbitration and Defendants were not entitled to wait until W Inc. sought confirmation of the arbitrator’s award to raise the issue.
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simpson v. Simpson 229 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gersten v. Gersten 219 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 , (stating that if the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous we apply it without invoking secondary principles of statutory construction).
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Of Am., Inc., ¶ 6 , (citations omitted).
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by