Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tempe v. Fleming, 815 P.2d 1.

86 citing documents.

Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Nevertheless, we do have discretion to consider matters not properly raised in the superior court, , and we have exercised this discretion when, as here, the facts are fully developed, undisputed, and the issue can be resolved as a matter of law.
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comm’n, , ); , (courts “will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself.”).
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(citing Town of Scottsdale v. State ex rel.
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
the matter involved is one which affects the general public interest, or where a legal principle, although not suggested by either party, should be adopted on appeal to expedite the enforcement of a right, or redress a wrong.’ ’’ , ( , ).
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh-2008-000867 213 P.3d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh-2008-000867 213 P.3d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 4 , , (courts “will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself ...
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(recognizing that the waiver rule “is procedural, not jurisdictional, and we may suspend it in our discretion” (citations omitted)).
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Nor will we read into the statute “something which is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself.”
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(exercising discretion to review issue not raised to trial court as a purely legal issue raised in summary judgment proceeding, no prejudice to appellee, and matter one of statewide interest).
Gorney v. Meaney Rincon Orthopedic Associates, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Gorney v. Meaney Rincon Orthopedic Associates, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(courts may not read into statutes something the legislature has not put there).
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(waiver rule is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be suspended in court's discretion).
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(rule that argument not asserted at trial court cannot be considered on appeal is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be suspended in court’s discretion).
Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr. 7 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr. 7 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(citing Town of Scottsdale v. State ex rel.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, , (recognizing the rule that “arguments not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal” as a procedural rule that the court may suspend at its own discretion) (citations omitted); , (same); see also Dombey v. Ph
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Mesa v. Smith Co. of Arizona, Inc. 816 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Mesa v. Smith Co. of Arizona, Inc. 816 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Recently, this court considered a