Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 224 P.3d 988.

40 citing documents.

Caudill v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Caudill v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ariz. Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
High Stakes v. Garver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
High Stakes v. Garver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ariz. Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Lizbeth Martinez Martinez v. Nancy Zuniga 547 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Lizbeth Martinez Martinez v. Nancy Zuniga 547 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See A. Uberti & –67, 569 (1995); Ariz. Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Woods v. McCarty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Woods v. McCarty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Arizona Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Malcomson v. Imvu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Malcomson v. Imvu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See, e.g., Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc., Arizona Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Singer v. Mondex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Singer v. Mondex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶12 To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Singer was required to offer “facts establishing a prima facie 4 SINGER v. MONDEX Decision of the Court showing of jurisdiction.” Ariz. Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010); (“The facts, and not the allegations of the complaint, must be the touchstone.”).
Busby v. Hon goldstein/busby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Busby v. Hon goldstein/busby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶7 “We review the superior court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction de novo.” Arizona Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thommi v. Fisher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2 THOMMI, et al. v. FISHER, et al. Decision of the Court Ariz. Tile, -99, ¶ 35 (App. 2010)); ¶ 8 (App. 2009) (reviewing a party’s compliance with Rule 54(g) de novo) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2008)).
In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“When a defendant challenges the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must come forward with facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, at which time the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the showing.” Ariz. Tile
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“When a defendant challenges the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must come forward with facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, at which time the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the showing.” Arizona Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stefanovich v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Great W. Bank v. LJC Dev., LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2015); Arizona Tile, ¶ 35 (App. 2010).
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Maricopa, ¶ 9 (App. 2015); Arizona Tile, –99, ¶ 35 (App. 2010).
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
v. Kader Holdings Co., Arizona Tile
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ariz. Tile, -99, ¶ 35 , -96 (App.2010).
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 10 To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must offer “facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” Arizona Tile, ¶ 8
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dessarollo Immobiliario Y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo v. Kader Holdings Company Limited Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“[Ijnterpretation and application of the attorney fee statute present questions of law subject to de novo review.” Ariz. Tile, -99, ¶ 35 , -96 (App.2010).
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dooley Corvallas Development Corp. v. O'Brien 244 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 9 “[Ijnterpretation and application of the attorney fee statute present questions of law subject to de novo review.” Ariz. Tile, -99, ¶35 , -96 (App.2010).
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Uberti, 181 Ariz. at 569, 892 P.2d at 1358; Arizona Tile, ¶ 8 , Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir.2008); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2006).