Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thomas v. City of Phoenix, 828 P.2d 1210.

26 citing documents.

Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“Courts will not hear cases that seek declaratory judgments that are advisory or answer moot or abstract questions.” (explaining “[d]eclaratory relief should be based on an existing state of facts, not facts that may or may not arise in the future”).
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Safeway v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Safeway v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bruer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bruer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
However, “[c]ourts will not hear cases that seek declaratory judgments that are advisory or answer moot or abstract questions,” and declaratory relief should turn on the “existing state of facts.”
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Merrick v. Escapule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Merrick v. Escapule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(a court “may decide a moot question or abstract proposition” when the issue is “capable of repetition yet evading review”).
Power v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Power v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See, , (recognizing that a court may decide a moot question if it is capable of repetition yet evading review).
Arizona Society of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 38 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Society of Pathologists v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 38 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(for declaratory relief, plaintiff must show dispute over protectible interest); , (declaratory judgment action must be based on actual controversy).
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(citing Arizona State Bd.