DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 871 P.2d 698.

120 citing documents.

  • Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  • Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    (medical expert’s affidavit which stated that “defendant caused plaintiff not to remember his acts or to recognize her injuries and that he did so by hypnosis” raised a material fact issue, precluding summary judgment)
  • Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    see Smith v. Smith, 830 F.2d 11 (2d Cir.1987) (no estoppel where no evidence showing abuser committed some act that prevented the victim from filing suit); Bowser v. Guttendorf, 373 Pa.Super.
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  • Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
  • Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
    for his delayed discovery argument.
  • Vega v. Morris 910 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1996
  • Vega v. Morris 910 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1996
    § 12-502 because historically, the legislature may have believed it would be “inequitable to hold persons under such disabilities to strict time limitations for filing legitimate claims.”
  • Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    section 12-502 "provides for the tolling of the statute of limitations during periods of minority, imprisonment[,] or insanity____ The statute is based on a public policy that it would be inequitable to hold persons under such disabilities to strict time limitations for filing legitimate claims.”
  • Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Ulibarri appealed, and this court reversed and remanded, finding that Ulibarri had “raised a material fact issue as to whether she could have discovered the existence of her cause of action within the statutory time period.”