DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 233 P.3d 1169.

77 citing documents.

  • Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Jeff D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (as amended); ¶ 12 (App. 2010).
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., Inc., , 604 ¶ 38
  • Jackson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jackson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    15, 2016) (as amended); ¶ 12 (App. 2010).
  • Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., Inc., ¶ 53 (App. 2010) (“Because lost future profits are capable of proof approaching mathematical precision, the requirement of ‘reasonable certainty’ must be applied with added force to such damages.”).
  • Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    We review a trial court’s refusal to order specific performance for an abuse of discretion, County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., Inc., , 609 ¶ 59, but its interpretation of a contract de novo, Rand v. Porsche Fin.
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 12, (assuming a deprivation of due process but refusing to find reversible error when appellant failed to demonstrate resulting unreasonable prejudice).
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., Inc., ¶ 53
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 61 , (“Whether Yakima was entitled to specific performance [in a breach of contract case] was a decision for the trial court sitting as a court of equity rather than the jury, which acted in an advisory role concerning the propriety of any equitable remedy.”); State ex rel.
  • Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -98, ¶¶ 9, 11, -77 (App. 2010).
  • MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    n.2, n.2 (App. 2010) (declining to review denial of summary judgment in view of factual issues later tried to jury and same legal conclusions underlying trial court’s ruling on motion for judgment as a matter of law).
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See id.; ¶ 7 , (citing Fields and Pritchard ); , (holding that a statute of limitations defense may be raised in a motion for summary judgment (citing Weller v. Weller, 14 Ariz.App.
  • Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 29 , (“Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in an answer or a Rule 12(b) motion, however, it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation____This rule applies to the notice of claim statute defense.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 8