Cited by

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012); State ex.

v. Allen, ¶ 1 (App. 2012) (“[A] plaintiff cannot shift the burden of proof to the defendant by filing a motion for summary judgment.”); ¶ 6 (App. 2012) (“[T]he movant has the burden of proving both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to each element of its claim

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (plaintiff must establish claims with admissible evidence).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (plaintiff has burden of establishing claims with admissible evidence).

v. Allen, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2010)).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (explaining that a motion for summary judgment does not shift that burden of proof to the defendant).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 19 (App. 2012) (“The purpose of a custodian’s affidavit is to authenticate evidence .

v. Allen, ¶¶ 18-20 (App. 2012) (finding an affidavit lacking where it did not describe or attach the referenced documents, did not establish the admissibility of the documents through an 5 WELLS FARGO v. HOSKYNS, et al. Decision of t

v. Allen, ¶ 17 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶¶ 16-18 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, and Trimble Cattle Co. v. Henry & Horne, to argue DMARC did not provide sufficient evidence and affidavits to support the damages calculation.

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012); ¶ 8 (App. 2006).

v. Allen, ¶¶ 18-20 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

v. Allen, ¶ 17, Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 115, ¶ 15, 180 P.3d at 980.