Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bowman v. Board of Regents, 785 P.2d 71.

42 citing documents.

In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
of Regents, , (citations omitted), superseded on other grounds by rule as stated in Larkin v. State ex rel.
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
of Regents, -59, -79 (App. 1989) (no cross-appeal necessary unless issues raised would attack lower court’s judgment).
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
of Regents, , (holding a party cannot attack judgment or seek to expand scope of judgment without filing a cross appeal).
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
this court set forth a three-part rule for determining when, in the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee may raise a cross-issue in its answering brief: (1) The cross-issue must be an argument in support of the judgment, not merely in support of the ultimate disposition on grounds
Roberts v. State 880 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Roberts v. State 880 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The State, , argues that we have no jurisdiction to consider this issue because Roberts failed to file a cross-appeal.
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In the original Opinion we filed in this case, we declined to address this issue because, , , we believed that we lacked jurisdiction of the matter since the Department had not filed a cross-appeal.
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-25 , -79 (1992) (emphasis added in original) ( , ).
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
extensively analyzed Maricopa County and other controlling Arizona authorities on the cross-issue vs. cross-appeal question.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
we stated: In the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee may raise a cross-issue in its answering brief only when it meets these criteria: (1) The cross-issue must be an argument in support of the judgment, not merely in support of the ultimate disposition on grounds that would attack the jud
State v. Benson 833 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Benson 833 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
California Cotton Cooperative Ass'n v. Arizona Department of Revenue 818 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
California Cotton Cooperative Ass'n v. Arizona Department of Revenue 818 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
we stated: In the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee may raise a cross-issue in its answering brief only when it meets these criteria: (1) The cross-issue must be an argument in support of the judgment, not merely in support of the ultimate disposition on grounds that.would attack the jud
Tempe Corporate Office Building v. Arizona Funding Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Tempe Corporate Office Building v. Arizona Funding Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
we held that an appellee must file a cross-appeal if the issue appellee raises attacks the trial court’s judgment.
Bills v. Arizona State Board of Education 819 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bills v. Arizona State Board of Education 819 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Whether a cross appeal should have been filed is determined by this court’s
Ayres v. Red Cloud Mills, Ltd. 808 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ayres v. Red Cloud Mills, Ltd. 808 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(quoting 9 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 204.11[3] at 4-47 (1989)).
State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
(both applying the same rule in the context of civil cases).
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-4974 785 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-4974 785 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990