Cited by

¶ 19 (App. 2014); see Satamian v. Great Divide Ins.

¶ 14 (App. 2014); (stating that “[w]hether a particular statute of limitations applies to any given action is a matter of law”).

8 TOWERS v. BENTZ, et al. Decision of the Court D. Reinstatement of 2015 and 2018 Toyotavantech.com Claims ¶25 to contend the scambook.com post “was part of .

We review the superior court’s statute of limitations rulings de novo as questions of law, mindful, however, that the date a cause of action accrues is “usually and necessarily [a] question[] of fact for the jury.” ¶ 32 (1998); ¶ 14 (App. 2014); see also Goodman v. Physical Res.

Under Arizona law, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the allegedly defamatory material is first made available to the public by posting it on a website;” “later circulation of the original publication does not start the statute of limitations anew, nor does it give rise to a new cause of action.” ¶ 23; 444 ¶ 19 (App 2014).

§ 12-541(1); ¶ 15 (App. 2014).

¶ 14 (App. 2014) (quotation omitted).

¶ 15 (App. 2014) (stating that one-year statute of limitations for defamation begins to run upon publication).

¶ 23, (applying the “single publication rule” and noting that, “in the case of Internet publications, the statute of limitations begins to run when the allegedly defamatory material is first made available to the public by posting it on a website”).