Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., 213 P.3d 320.

28 citing documents.

Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 12-542(1); Cannon v. Hirsch L. Off., P.C., ¶ 8 (App. 2009).
Shafer v. Walgreen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shafer v. Walgreen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The word “lawsuit” is “a vernacular term for a suit.” Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citing In re Barrett Ref.
Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District 349 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District 349 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.’” Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
Armc 2011 v. Fennemore Craig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Armc 2011 v. Fennemore Craig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 7
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hayenga v. Gilbert 342 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 905,1475 (defining “lawsuit” as “[a]ny proceeding by a party or parties against another in a court of law”); ¶ 19 , (reeognizing that proceedings before administrative agencies, arbitration panels, or claims commissions, and alternative dispute resolution proceedings, may constitute “litigation”).
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 7
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 20
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and reasonable inferences „in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.‟” Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 19 , (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary, reasoning, “In determining the ordinary meaning of a word [set forth in Arizona case law], we may refer to an established and widely used dictionary.”) ( ¶ 12 , ).
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 19
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 19
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 10 Although we may consult a dictionary for the meaning of a statutory term, Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., ¶ 19 , the definitions offered for the term "indebtedness" are not dispositive.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by