Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maricopa County v. Barkley, 812 P.2d 1052.

32 citing documents.

Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Maricopa v. Hon. Ainley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Barkley, Cochise Cnty.
State v. Bibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Bibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Beaumont v. Beaumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Beaumont v. Beaumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Barkley, ); see also Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48 (noting the trial court has broad discretion to choose between conflicting evidence).
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Barkley, (“The overarching rule which guides our review of the trial court’s decision of the qualifications of the witnesses as experts is that the determination of this matter is left to the discretion of the trial court.”).
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vortex v. denkewicz/engelhard 334 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that a trial court has discretion to qualify experts and rely on various methods in making a valuation determination).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 21 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2001
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 21 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2001
(“Just compensation has never been reduced to a single formula; rather than a general formula, various ways of valuing property are appropriate depending on the circumstances.”); , (“[T]he conce
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶25 Moreover, even if Fiene had not done a valuation “according to the standard methodology of professional appraisers, then .that failure went to the weight of [his] opinions rather than to admissibility.” -40 , -58 (App.1990).
Pima County v. Gonzalez 969 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Pima County v. Gonzalez 969 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ariz. Const. art. II, § 17
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
156 , , which seem to say that initial filing of suit in the county required by statute is mandatory.
Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by