Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District, 217 P.3d 1220.

78 citing documents.

Salazar v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Salazar v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 14 (App. 2009)
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 83 (App. 2009)).
Todd Underwood v. Thomas Wilczynski and Dana Wilczynski Janet A. Bewley... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Todd Underwood v. Thomas Wilczynski and Dana Wilczynski Janet A. Bewley... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
of Maricopa Cnty., (easement does not alter legal title to property except as to the limited character of the easement); ¶¶ 17, 19 (App. 2011) (although use of servient estate may not impair use of easement, servient estate holder entitled to “other compatible uses of the land”); Hunt v
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Triple G v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Triple G v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (“To prevail [in an inverse condemnation suit], a plaintiff must prove a governmental entity constructed or developed a public improvement that substantially interfered with the plaintiff’s property right.”).
Fst Farms v. Vanderwey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fst Farms v. Vanderwey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 14 (App. 2009).
Tempe v. Sussex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tempe v. Sussex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 18 (App. 2009).
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 18 (App. 2009).
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 66 (App. 2009) (citing Kohl, 215 Ariz. at 295, ¶ 15).
Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the requesting party, Anderson v. Nissei ASB Mach.
Nicaise v. Sundaram 418 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nicaise v. Sundaram 418 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
543, ¶ 99, , 1248 (App. 2009) ("An offer of proof is 'simply a detailed description of what the proposed evidence is.'
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 14 (App. 2009).
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 14, (citations omitted).
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 18 , (Arizona law requires government to pay just compensation when it takes or damages private property).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citing Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 34 (App. 2003)).
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa Cty., - 36, ¶ 61 (App. 2009) (approving a jury instruction on the available measure of damages that “reflected the true economic loss” of the injured landowners and rejecting an alternate theory that would result in a windfall at the defendants’ expense) (citation omitted); Restatement (First) of Contracts § 346 cmt.
Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa Cty., -34, ¶ 50, - 39 (App. 2009) (party entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory reasonably supported by evidence) (citation omitted); ¶ 10, (appellate court reviews superior court’s decision to give an instruction for abuse
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Carter v. Pain Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carter v. Pain Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa County, ¶ 50 (App. 2009).
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa Cty., ¶ 50 (App. 2009).