Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tripati v. FORWITH, 219 P.3d 291.

24 citing documents.

Tope v. Magnus Title Agency, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Ghanayem v. Ghanayem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Corp., -85 ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2009).
CHAMPAGNE v. BOZER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
CHAMPAGNE v. BOZER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Corp., -85 ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2009).
Gray v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gray v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Distinguished Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hancock Enterprises, Inc., in support of her appeal.
Rep Custom v. McBride Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rep Custom v. McBride Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See ARCAP 9(e); ¶ 15 (App. 2009).
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See Tripati v. Forwith , , ¶ 23, ; see also Fitzgerald v. Superior Court , , 543, , 469 (App. 1992) (accepting special-action jurisdiction to review denial of motion to dismiss charges based on claims of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel).
Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 4 n.4 (App. 2016) (“We are not bound, however, by the decisions of the motions panel.”); ¶ 12 (App. 2009) (disagreeing with motions panel).
Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Juvenile Rules 103(A) and 104(A); ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (holding that a final order denying a Rule 60(c) motion is appealable pursuant to A.R.S.
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver 375 P.3d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver 375 P.3d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(disagreeing with motions panel); In re Stagecoach Utils., Inc., 86 B.R.
Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(disagreeing with motions panel); In re Stagecoach Utils., Inc., 86 B.R.
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–94, and the denial of relief under Rule 60(c) for an inadvertently entered judgment, ¶ 14

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by