DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, 312 P.3d 1121.

32 citing documents.

  • Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    see § 12-409(B)(5); CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, (recusal did not “taint [prior] rulings with the appearance of impropriety”); Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2003) (subsequent recusal did not raise substantial question about impartiality).
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    “When a ruling is based on conflicting testimony, we will not disturb the court’s ruling by reweighing the evidence.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 25 (App. 2013), vacated in part by ¶ 25 (2014).
  • Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (quoting CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, -63, ¶ 25 (App. 2013), vacated in part, ).
  • Bmo v. Espiau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Bmo v. Espiau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    The court “may adopt portions of the evidence from different witnesses,” and we “will sustain a result anywhere between the highest and lowest estimate which may be arrived at by using the various factors appearing in the testimony in any combination which is reasonable.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, -63, ¶ 25 (App. 2013) (citation and internal quotations marks omitted), vacated in part by
  • Chauncey v. Chauncey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Chauncey v. Chauncey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    The court may even, in its discretion, “adopt portions of the evidence from different witnesses.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, -63, ¶ 25 (App. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 29 (App. 2013) (holding party "waived this argument" by "not 12 ROZENMAN, et al. v. BLANCO, et al. Decision of the Court object[ing] .
  • Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 25 (App. 2013); Stoddard, 224 Ariz. at 154, ¶ 9.
  • Wells Fargo v. Terrenate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wells Fargo v. Terrenate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Likewise, the court “may adopt portions of the evidence from different witnesses,” and we “will sustain a result anywhere between the highest and lowest estimate which may be arrived at by using the various factors appearing in the testimony in any combination which is reasonable.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, -63, ¶ 25 (App. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).
  • Merrick v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Merrick v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Our task is to determine “whether a genuine issue of material fact for trial exists, and, if not, whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2013).
  • First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Claassen 357 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Claassen 357 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 24, (holding public policy prohibits waiver of fair market determination under A.R.S.
  • Laughlin v. Lords Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Laughlin v. Lords Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “In determining a property’s fair market value, a trial court may adopt portions of the evidence from different witnesses, and this Court will sustain a result anywhere between the highest and lowest estimate which may be arrived at by using the various factors appearing in the testimony in any combination which is reasonable.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, –63 ¶ 25, –29 (App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • Burley v. Ali Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Burley v. Ali Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    On appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence “as long as substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 29 (App. 2013).
  • E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    a statute's language is ambiguous, we attempt to determine the legislative intent by interpreting the statute as a whole, considering its place in the relevant statutory scheme, as well as the statute's “subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” Harris, 234 Ariz. at 345, ¶ 13 (internal citations omitted); see CSA 13–101 Loop, LLC, v. Loop 101, LLC, –61, ¶ 14 (App. 2013).
  • CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
  • CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
    No. CV2009-034774 AFFIRMED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One P.3d 1121 (App. 2013) VACATED IN PART COUNSEL: Sean K. McElenney (argued), J. Alex Grimsley, Gregory B. Iannelli, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, for CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC Timothy Berg (argued), Carrie Pixler Ryerson, Kevin M. Green, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix, for Loop 101, LLC; Paul S. A
  • Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    uage is ambiguous, we attempt to determine the legislative intent by interpreting the statute as a whole, considering its place in the relevant statutory scheme, as well as the statute’s “subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” Harris, 234 Ariz. at 345, ¶ 13, 322 P.3d at 162 (internal citations omitted); see CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC, v. Loop 101, LLC, -61, ¶¶ 14-17, -27 (App. 2013).
  • Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand Haddock 330 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    1991); CSA 13-101 10 BENNETT BLUM, M.D., INC. v. COWAN Opinion of the Court Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC