DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department, 868 P.2d 335.

53 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Dave Allen Laporte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    Because “[s]uch a waiver cannot be presumed when the defendant was [not] informed of the right to jury trial on aggravating factors,” id., and there is nowhere in the transcript that shows LaPorte was informed of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors, there was no change of evidence to warrant deviation from the mandate, see Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, (law of the case doctrine applies where facts, issues and evidence remain substantially similar).
  • Flanigan v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Flanigan v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, (stating that where the allegedly preclusive prior decision had been entered in the same action rather than in a prior action, claim preclusion did not apply).
  • State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, (“‘Law of the case’ concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court.”).
  • Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “[O]nce an appellate court rules on a legal question, that decision is the law of that case on the issue decided in all subsequent proceedings in both trial and appellate courts provided the facts, issues and evidence remain substantially the same.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • Florence v. Florence Copper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Florence v. Florence Copper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • Meyer v. State 436 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Meyer v. State 436 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The Legislators in this case “sought no recovery for themselves and achieved no personal gain or advantage; they did not act for their own benefit or for the benefit of a particular class or group, but instead acted to vindicate the interests of the entire citizenry of the state.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson, Az, Llc,...william Amoureux 378 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson, Az, Llc,...william Amoureux 378 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    ¶10 Claim preclusion dictates that a “judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Co., 657 F.2d 855, 861- 62 (7th Cir. 1981)); see Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, -32, (App. 1993) (citing Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ).
  • In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    The Weinsteins rely on our recommendation that trial courts “indicate on the record the factors taken into account and reasons for [reducing] a discretionary fee award.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, see also Associated Indem.
  • Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    The Weinsteins rely on our recommendation that trial courts “indicate on the record the factors taken into account and reasons for [reducing] a discretionary fee award.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , see also Associated Indem.
  • Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (where this court failed to address attorneys’ fees, the trial court on remand was free to entertain an attorneys’ fees application); Harbel, 86 Ariz. at 306, 307-08 , 345 P.2d at 429, 430 (where the appellate court “neither expressly nor impliedly” addressed certain defenses, the t
  • Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 60 , Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Bay Gardens, ¶ 17 , Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
  • Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , (citation omitted).
  • Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    (discussing the general proposition that enhancement is rare); Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , (applying the private attorney general doctrine); , (applying statutory fee shifting doctrine); , (applying the "bad faith” excepti
  • State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    “ ‘Law of the case’ concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” ¶ 13 , (quoting Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , ) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    at 279 , 860 P.2d at 1332 ; see also Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 12-14 , ¶¶ 12-14 (App.2003); Radish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, -28 , -41 (App.1993).
  • Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Hard Rock urges us to apply "law of the case” and reach the same conclusion, see, , and Camelback Plaza argues the doctrine is inapplicable.
  • Kerr v. Killian 3 P.3d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Kerr v. Killian 3 P.3d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Davis v. Davis 985 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    “ ‘Law of the case’ concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , (citation omitted).
  • Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, -27 , -40 (App.1993) (we affirm the trial court if the record contains a reasonable justification for the trial court’s decision); , (court of appeals may affirm a trial court’s decision on a legal basis different than
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    See Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
  • Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995