Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lansford v. Harris, 850 P.2d 126.

39 citing documents.

WESTOFF v. RENT-SELL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”).
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
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.”).
Duffy v. Pearson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duffy v. Pearson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.” (citation omitted).
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“On appeal from summary judgment, the appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”).
Hackett v. Hackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hackett v. Hackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“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)).
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding that on appeal from a grant of summary judgment an appellant may not advance new theories or raise new issues).
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC 336 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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.”
Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
n.1, n.1 (App. 1998); n.1, n.1 (App. 1992).
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(refusing to consider argument on appeal when this court could not find any instance where argument was made in the trial court).
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Best v. Edwards 176 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Furthermore, one appealing summary judgment “may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal.”
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schoneberger v. Oelze 96 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, , 420 n. 1, , 133 n. 1 (App.1992).
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
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)
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
"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).
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(medical malpractice); , (legal malpractice); Lawhon v. L.B.J.