Cited by

v. Allen, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) (citation omitted); Nat’l ¶ 15 (App. 2008).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, - 15, ¶¶ 19-21 (App. 2012) (vacating summary judgment because moving party did not properly authenticate supporting exhibits as required by Rule 56).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012); Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012); 195 (App. 1990).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).

v. Allen, § 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, § 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, –14, ¶¶ 18–19 (App. 2012) (holding affidavit insufficient to invoke business-records hearsay exception or support motion for summary judgement because it did not describe or attach records at issue and because affiant did not describe his personal knowledge of specific records or manner in which they were prepared

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 20 n.3 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012); State ex rel.

must prove” the elements of legal malpractice); see also, ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (explaining, in contract cases, that “the mere absence of a genuine dispute of material fact does not automatically entitle a plaintiff [who bears the burden of proof] to [summary] judgment—the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the evidence entitles it to judgment as a matter of law”).

v. Allen, ¶ 19 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).