DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway, 246 P.3d 938.

83 citing documents.

  • Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ctr., ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (“We review an order granting a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)] for abuse of discretion.”).
  • Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove 429 P.3d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Dunn v. Fastmed Urgent Care PC 424 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ctr., LP v. Callaway , , 289, ¶ 7, , 940 (App. 2010) (holding that "even if a document is not attached to the complaint, if it is central to the claim, the court may consider it without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment"); see also Strategic Dev.
  • Shafer v. McCombs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ctr., ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (citing Doe, 191 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 37).
  • Broadband v. Satcom 418 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ctr., ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
  • Kasson v. Burgener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ctr., -91, ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (providing that when interpreting a contract, we “look to the plain meaning of the words as viewed in the context of the contract as a whole”).
  • Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    v. Callaway, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (“The discovery rule .
  • Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hta-Scw v. Roskamp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010).
  • Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010), but reviews factual findings for an abuse of discretion, see Great W. Bank v. LJC Dev., LLC, ¶ 22 (App. 2015).
  • Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
  • Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).
  • Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ctr., ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (citing Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.
  • Red River v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    See, , , 943 (App.2011) (criminal liability may be based on accomplice theory if state proves defendant aided or facilitated commission of offense by principal).
  • Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    v. Callaway, ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
  • Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ctr., ¶ 26, (stating a court does not err in denying a motion to amend if the amendment would be futile).
  • Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    Ctr., (discovery rule tolls limitations period); see also 51 Am.
  • Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Swartz v. Co II Velo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mtr Builders v. Jahan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010); Grosvenor Holdings, L.C.
  • Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We will not construe a contract term in a way that renders another contract term meaningless -- “each part of a contract must be read together, ‘to bring harmony, if possible, between all parts of the writing.’” ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).
  • Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    v. Callaway, -91, ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (quoting United Cal.
  • US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
  • Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    v. Callaway, -91, ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (citations omitted).
  • First Fidelity v. Toll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ctr., ¶ 15, ), and will affirm the judgment of the trial court if any reasonable view of the facts and law support it.
  • Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 15
  • Dueñas v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 336 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    arising out of or in any way related or connected to the Resident’s stay and care provided at the Facility.” This provision refines and qualifies the broader statements, limiting the agreements to disputes regarding the “stay and care provided.” See ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 18 , , 942 (App.2010) (“[B]ecause specific contract provisions express the parties’ intent more precisely than general provisions, specific provisions qualify the meaning of general provisions.”).
  • Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Elm Retirement Ctr., ¶ 15 , , 941 (App.2010).
  • Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 5 , , 940 (App.2010).