DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boswell v. Fintelmann, 392 P.3d 496.

48 citing documents.

  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    And a party waives claims by failing “to develop and support [the party’s] conclusory arguments.” ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017); See Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    And a party waives claims by failing “to develop and support [the party’s] conclusory arguments.” ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017).
  • Anderson v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Anderson v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support conclusory arguments results in waiver).
  • King v. Bertram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • King v. Bertram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (“Because [appellant] fails to develop and support his conclusory arguments .
  • In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support argument results in waiver); Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
  • Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
  • 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
    App. P. 13(a)(7)(A) (opening brief must contain argument “concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention” and “citations of legal authorities” relied upon); n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support argument results in 4We reject Bourke’s contention that the presiding judge’s alleged bias “constitutes structural error.” In criminal cases, structural error is error that “deprive[s] defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal trial can
  • Arnold v. Viewpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Arnold v. Viewpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    § 12-2603.” ¶ 5 (App. 2017).
  • Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶ 5 (App. 2017) (reviewing de novo the superior court’s dismissal for failure to serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit as a pleading failure).
  • Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See, n.3, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (finding waiver when an appellant “fail[ed] to develop and support [the appellant’s] conclusory arguments”).
  • State v. Mill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Mill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lagman v. Lagman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Lagman v. Lagman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (undeveloped, unsupported, conclusory arguments are deemed waived).
  • McKee v. Lamore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • McKee v. Lamore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (citing ARCAP 13(a)(7)).
  • Shaw v. Bergeron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Shaw v. Bergeron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017).
  • Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 12- 2603(F); -55, ¶¶ 7-8 (App. 2017).
  • Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See ARCAP 13(a)(7); IMH, et al. v. MANIATIS, et al. Decision of the Court 54, ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support conclusory arguments waives them).
  • Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Lavicka v. Lavicka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (noting appellant who “fails to develop and support his conclusory arguments .
  • Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017); ARCAP 13(a)(7).
  • Tune v. Donor Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Tune v. Donor Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support conclusory arguments waives appellate review).
  • Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 7, n.3 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support conclusory arguments waives them).
  • Feliciano v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Feliciano v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    n.3, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (failure to develop and support conclusory arguments waives appellate review); ARCAP 13(7)(a).
  • Williamson v. O'Brien 397 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Williamson v. O'Brien 397 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 12-2603 is not a sanction for a discovery violation, but a substantive pleading failure, Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. *430 52 , 54 ¶ 5, because the statute is “meant to certify that the action ...