DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

131 citing documents.

  • Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Fees v. Fees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Fees v. Fees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Accordingly, we vacate the 5 -37, ¶¶ 9-11, -86 (App. 2009), in which a party failed to include discovery responses or other competent evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment.
  • Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Stazenski v. Coughlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Northstar v. Collingwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Northstar v. Collingwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Schoenberg v. Rm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    P. 56(a); -37, ¶ 10, -86 (App. 2009).
  • Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Tbf Financial v. Devens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 11, (explaining that “an adverse party who fails to respond 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”).
  • Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    P. 56(c); -37, ¶ 10, -86 (App. 2009) (granting summary judgment when the non-moving party “submitted no competent evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).
  • Citibank v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Citibank v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    n.4, n.4 (App. 2009) ("whether such a search is required, either by the trial court or on appeal, 4 NUR/IBRAHIM v. SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE Decision of the Court depends on 'the volume and complexity' of the specific l
  • Cooper v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Cooper v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    It is a ‘final judgment on the merits.’” see also Grand v. Cigna Prop.
  • Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Rudinsky v. Harris 290 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    A party who fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, however, “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 , (citation omitted).
  • Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    “We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 16
  • Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. *253 233, 239, ¶ 19, ( ¶ 50 , ); Country Mut.
  • State v. Beadle 326 P.2d 344 Ariz. 1958