Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carrillo v. State, 817 P.2d 493.

50 citing documents.

State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Becker v. Liu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Becker v. Liu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snethen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snethen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(citation omitted) (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Arizona State University Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System 396 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arizona State University Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System 396 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(failing to raise an issue in first appeal waives it as to the second appeal).
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
As this court has explained, “issues not raised and argued in a first appeal may not be raised later in a second appeal.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2003) ().
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 97, ); (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”) ().
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See ARCAP 13(a)(7); (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.” (citation omitted)).
Fine Point v. Occidental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fine Point v. Occidental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[i]ssues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived”).
Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97, (“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived.” ( )).
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
("Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Badia, 988 P.2d at 141 (§ 12-820.04 “would not necessarily preclude a punitive damage award under § 1983 against those who commit civil rights violations”); (noting plaintiff‟s right to seek punitive damages from individual defendant under § 1983 “[b]alanced [by] .
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
("Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.").
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
& Entm’t, Inc. v. Bank One of Ariz., N.A., -93 (App. 2002)
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
("Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Joel Erik Thompson, Ltd. v. Holder 965 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
P. 13(a)(5) (appellant’s opening brief shall contain “[a] statement of the issues presented for review”); , (a party who fails to present argument or authority to support a claim of error waives that claim); , (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Ann. ("A.R.S.") (appellant’s brief shall contain "[a] statement of issues presented for review”); , (a party who fails to present argument or authority to support a claim of error waives that claim); , ("Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.").
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
358, 364 , 116 L.Ed.2d 301, 313 (1991)