Cited by

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 36 (App. 2012) (noting that “[j]udicial estoppel .

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 31 (App. 2012) (quotation omitted); –83 ¶ 18 (App. 2023) (explaining final judgment is reviewed notwithstanding any contrary previous ruling).

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 35 (App. 2012).

Ltd. P’ship, –46, ¶ 58 (App. 2012).

Ltd., 45, ¶¶ 44-46, 54 (App. 2012) (finding counterclaim timely complied with "notice of claim" statute); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., LLC, ¶¶ 45-46 (App. 2007) (discussing applicability of "notice of claim" statute to a counterclaim for injunctive relief).

Ltd. P’Ship, ¶ 80 (App. 2012) (“[A]n application for an award of attorneys’ fees .

Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 71-73 (App. 2012) (superior court has discretion to allocate sanctions in cases where an apportioned offer of judgment is made to multiple parties).

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 39 (App. 2012).

Ltd. Partnership, ¶ 35 (App. 2012) (discussing elements of judicial estoppel).

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 34, (“Judicial estoppel is a discretionary doctrine which the court may decline to apply for equitable or policy considerations.”).

Ltd. Partnership, ¶ 44, (refusing to consider an argument on appeal that was not properly raised in the trial court).

OPINION THOMPSON, Judge: ¶ 1 Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) appeals from the revised second amended judgment entered on remand after this Court’s

Ltd. P’ship, BOND v. SAN TAN, et al. Decision of the Court 37, ¶ 16

Ltd. P’ship, (“[T]he entry of a judgment fixes the amount due and a claim for indemnity on that judgment is then liquidated.”).