Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 837 P.2d 1207.

58 citing documents.

Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Bishop v. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Vista De Oeste v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vista De Oeste v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Bishop v. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Ute Mountain v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ute Mountain v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 15(a)(2) (“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.”); Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”).
Worldwide v. Toulatos Silberman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Worldwide v. Toulatos Silberman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 15(a)(2) (“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.”); Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., -75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the superior court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”).
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Flagexpress, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Flagexpress, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992) (explaining “a [superior] court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to amend if it finds .
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); see also Driftwood, CV-20-01532-PHX-DJH, at *6 (denying Strojnik’s motion to amend because of his well-established pattern of filing deficient lawsuits).
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992) (explaining there is no abuse of discretion in denying a proposed amendment if allowing such would be futile).
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 15(a)(2) (“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.”); Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); Owen v. Super.
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Bishop v. State, Dep’t of Corr.
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ct., Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the superior court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”); Ariz. R. Civ.
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(citing Bishop v. State of Ariz., Dep’t of Corr., -75 (App. 1992)).
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Co., , Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corr., -75 , -10 (App. 1992).
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., -75 (App. 1992) (citation omitted).
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75, –10 (App. 1992).
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corrections, -75, -10 (App. 1992).
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ce assumed a duty by routinely undertaking to remove or warn of dangerous highway conditions); see, e.g., Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 223-24, ¶¶ 14-16 , 92 P.3d at 853-54 ; , (“A party may voluntarily assume a duty not imposed at common law and, once assumed, must *488 discharge the duty with reasonable care.”); , (“An actor who gratuitously undertakes to render services agrees to exercise reasonable care in performing the undertaking.”).
Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., -75, -10 (App. 1992).
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-75, -10 (App. 1992) (court does not abuse discretion in denying a motion to amend where amendment would be futile).
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
futility in the amendment.” Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., -75 , -10 (App.1992).
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cf. Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corrections, , (because school recruited students for youth conference, it thereby assumed a duty of care to them).
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corrections
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture, , (a motion for judgment on the pleadings accepts as false all of the moving party’s allegations which are denied by the opposing party).
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bishop *251 v. State, Dep’t of Corrections

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by