Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tilley v. Delci, 204 P.3d 1082.

135 citing documents.

Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
4 SCHOLTES, et al. v. GONZALES, et al. Decision of the Court ¶11 In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the superior court considers “those portions of the verified pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which are brought to the court’s attention by the parties.” ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Choisser v. State ex rel.
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶16 We review the family court’s denial of a petition for legal decision-making and parenting time for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
Capp v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Capp v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 11 (App. 2009); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Murillo v. Tuckett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Murillo v. Tuckett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Birth Hope Adoption Agency, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
Sakthiveilv. Capital Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sakthiveilv. Capital Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing Choisser v. State ex rel.
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“The superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [a] motion for reconsideration.”).
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shores v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shores v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 16 (App. 2009) (quoting Torres v. N. Am.
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
On this record, the 13 SEIDMAN, et al. v. WEILER, et al. Decision of the Court court’s decision was not “manifestly unreasonable.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“An adverse party who fails to respond [to a motion for summary judgment] does so at his peril because uncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn, will be presumed to be true.” ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (quoting Choisser v. State ex rel.
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tittelbach v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tittelbach v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (App. 2009) (motions to reconsider); ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (Rule 60 motions).
Boland v. Discount Tire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boland v. Discount Tire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We review rulings under Rule 7.1 for abuse of discretion, ¶ 17 (App. 2004), which is discretion that is “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons,” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wagner v. State 393 P.3d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bundy v. Alford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bundy v. Alford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“‘Abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
An “‘[a]buse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cullison, 120 Ariz. at 167, n.1; ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
Layland v. Layland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Layland v. Layland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ida v. Leach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ida v. Leach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19, (citation omitted).