DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc., 197 P.3d 758.

64 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough.”); MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, n.7 (App. 2008) (declining to address argument in appellate brief lacking analysis); Ace Auto.
  • Veronica M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Veronica M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., n.7, ¶ 19, n.7 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived).
  • Bond v. San Tan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Bond v. San Tan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10
  • Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    provision remains uncertain after consideration of the parties’ intentions, as reflected by their language in view of surrounding circumstances, a secondary rule of construction requires the provision to be construed against the drafter.” MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10, (citations omitted).
  • Alpha, LLC v. Dartt 304 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Alpha, LLC v. Dartt 304 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    No. 97, , 167, , 47 (App.1996) (issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived); MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., , 304 n. 7, ¶ 19, , 765 n.7 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are waived).
  • Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 22 When the meaning of a contractual provision remains unclear after consideration of the parties’ intentions, “a secondary rule of construction requires the provision to be construed against the drafter.” MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 10
  • Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    “Indemnification against liability applies once liability for a cause of action is established; the indemnitee is not required to make actual payment.” MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., ¶ 11 , (citing INA Ins.