Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., 801 P.2d 445.

34 citing documents.

Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Powell-Cerkoney, 176 Ariz. at 278-79 (citing Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., ).
Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Dunlap, 169 Ariz. at 66, 817 P.2d at 11; Powell–Cerkoney, 176 Ariz. at 279, 860 P.2d at 1332; see also Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., (expressing “disfavor” about judge reconsidering another judge’s order, but addressing “the substantive issues of this appeal”).
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , , (“The jurisdiction of the court, no matter by which judge it is exercised, is that of the whole court, and not of one judge nor division thereof.”).
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Criticized CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“[O]ne trial judge should not reconsider the decision of another in the absence of new circumstances.”), with United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1999) (trial judge may change ruling on motions in limine at trial because testimony may bring facts to judge’s
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(citing Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , ).
Krausz v. Maricopa County 28 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Krausz v. Maricopa County 28 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 14 Taxpayers’ reliance on Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , is likewise misplaced.
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 33 We held in Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , a tax case challenging a classification of property, that the evidence supplied by a taxpayer did not support the inference that commercial classification of the taxpayer’s property would result in impermissible discrimination.
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See, e.g., Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., -16 , -51 (App.1990).
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , Scottsdale Princess Partnership, 185 Ariz. at 376 , 916 P.2d at 1092 .
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
If no new circumstances have arisen, a second trial judge should not review the ruling of the first judge; such a practice wastes judicial resources and encourages “judge shopping.” Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd.
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Criticized Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, e.g., Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , (reconsideration inappropriate where the additional evidence was not “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, *398 and did not justify reexamination by a second judge”).
Tile USA v. Maricopa County 855 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tile USA v. Maricopa County 855 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , we adopted and applied Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83(4), which provides: An adjudicative determination of an issue by an administrative tribunal does not preclude relitigation of that issue in another tribunal if according preclusive effect to determination of the issue would be inc
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
As we stated in an analogous situation in Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., , : Calcot’s evidence at best suggests that the Department has been insufficiently thoroughgoing in enforcing a statutorily appropriate policy of classifying commercial properties according to their use.
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
In Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd,., , we held that certain real property owned by appellee California Cotton Cooperative Association, Ltd. (Calcot) properly should have been classified as class three (commercial) property pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by