Cited by

Church of Diocese of Phoenix, ¶ 28 (App. 2023) (waiving appellant’s theory on appeal because appellant failed to properly raise the theory in superior court); (“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may 5 AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN, et al. Decision of the Court not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”).

“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.” (citation omitted).

(“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”).

“Compulsory counterclaims arise from the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and if such claims are not pled in the first action, they are waived and barred in any subsequent action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 8, (-19 (App. 1992)).

(holding that on appeal from a grant of summary judgment an appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues).

This court has stated that “[o]n appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”

n.1, n.1 (App. 1998); n.1, n.1 (App. 1992).

(refusing to consider argument on appeal when this court could not find any instance where argument was made in the trial court).

Furthermore, one appealing summary judgment “may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”

See, , 420 n. 1, , 133 n. 1 (App.1992).

And, as a general rule, “[o]n appeal from summary judgment, a party may not advance new theories or raise new issues to attempt to secure a reversal.” Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, n.2, n.2 (App. 2000)

"We caution counsel that this court may disregard their statements of facts if they fail to comply with Rule 13.” , 417 n. 1, , 130 n. 1 (App.1992).

(medical malpractice); , (legal malpractice); Lawhon v. L.B.J.