DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 812 P.2d 1096.

26 citing documents.

  • Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Acosta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Acosta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶29 Moreover, if Acosta wanted to oppose summary judgment based on an inadequate or incomplete disclosure, he “should have requested a continuance or filed an affidavit in compliance with [Rule 56(d)], explaining why he was [] unable to present facts essential to justify his opposition.” Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  • Yee v. Yee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Yee v. Yee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    7 TRUE NORTH v. LAI Decision of the Court (quoting Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., n.4 (App. 1991)).
  • Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Marquez, 231 Ariz. at 441, ¶ 14 (“We do not substitute our discretion for that of the trial court.”); see also Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (facts are viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the sanctions imposed).
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Read , 169 Ariz. at 355 , 819 P.2d at 941 ("Slight inaccuracies will not prevent a statement from being true in substance, as long as the 'gist' or 'sting' of the publication is justified.") (quoting Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. , , 285, n.4, , 1103 (App. 1991) ); Sign Here , 243 Ariz. at 107-08, ¶ 30 , 402 P.3d at 465-66 ; Fendler , 130 Ariz. at 480 , 636 P.2d at 1262 .
  • Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (holding that denial of additional fact finding was not abuse of discretion when the purported additional facts would not support the proposed theory of liability).
  • Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“Proof of actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendants published either with knowledge that the defamatory statements were false or with reckless disregard for whether the statements were true or false.”).
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., n.4, n.4 (App. 1991).
  • Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    (when a party fails to request a continuance to complete discovery, appellate court will not reverse on the basis that summary judgment was premature); see also Heuisler v. Phoenix Newsp., Inc., , (by failing to seek continuance or file affidavit, party conceded lack of sufficient facts to counter motion and waived objection that ruling was precipitate).
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  • Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 819 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1991
  • Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 819 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1991
    Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , 285 n. 4, , 1103 n. 4 (App.1991); Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.