Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shoen v. Shoen, 804 P.2d 787.

78 citing documents.

Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
(setting forth factors to consider in ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction).
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
(setting forth factors to consider in ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction).
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
The Shoen Standard for Preliminary In-junctive Relief ¶ 6
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
While this court has not had occasion to set forth the analytical framework for evaluating requests for stays in the appellate context, Arizona courts have applied to such stay requests the traditional criteria for the issuance of preliminary injunctions, , (preliminary injunction standards); , (same), as did the appellate court and the parties in this case.
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See, , (finding that judicial inquiry is precluded where a decision is made in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment, in the legitimate and lawful furtherance of the corporate purpose) (emphasis added); see generally 3A Fletcher Cyc.
P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones 123 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones 123 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Rather, , the court applied the criteria normally employed to evaluate an application for a preliminary injunction in an original proceeding.
Kromko v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Kromko v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(party seeking injunctive relief must show strong likelihood of success at trial on merits, possibility of irreparable harm not remedied by damages if injunction not granted, balance of hardships in party’s favor, and public policy favoring injunctive relief).
Power P.E.O., Inc. v. Employees Insurance of Wausau 38 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Power P.E.O., Inc. v. Employees Insurance of Wausau 38 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The balance of hardships favors Wausau if it establishes “probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.”
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
The business judgment rule “precludes judicial inquiry into actions taken by a director in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the legitimate and lawful furtherance of a corporate purpose.”
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992