Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership, 831 P.2d 386.
- Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC
397 P.3d 1049
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, e.g., Miller v. Westcor Ltd. P’ship, (“The focus of the trial court’s inquiry is on the interference with the normal relationship between parent and child.”).
- Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Batty v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205 212 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Batty v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205
212 P.3d 930
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. P’ship
- Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt
212 P.3d 29
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. P’ship, -91 , -90 (App.1991).
- Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Miller v. Westcor Ltd. P’ship, n.3, n.3 (App. 1991) (choosing theory of analysis of multiple relevant duties based on specific facts of case).
- AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- City of Phoenix v. Mangum 912 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- City of Phoenix v. Mangum 912 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Brink Electric Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 909 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Mancillas v. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. FUND 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Overruled Mancillas v. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. FUND 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Mancillas v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Overruled Mancillas v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Feitler v. LaChance 883 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
-
Feitler v. LaChance
883 P.2d 427
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Where, as here, the material facts are “for the most part undisputed [the appellate court’s] role is to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law to these facts.”