DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, 860 P.2d 1328.

114 citing documents.

  • Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Powell–Cerkoney v. TCR–Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, - 81 (App. 1993) (“Under Rule 65(a), the trial court may not reach a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing unless the hearing has been properly consolidated with a trial on the merits.”).
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, -81, -34 (App. 1993).
  • Cundiff v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cundiff v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See generally King, 180 Ariz. at 279, 883 P.2d at 1035; Dessar, 353 F.2d at 470; see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (providing exceptions to law of the case doctrine).
  • First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (law of the case doctrine does not apply “if the prior decision did not actually decide the issue in question”).
  • Roman Catholic Church v. Hon bluff/lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Roman Catholic Church v. Hon bluff/lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Grimsland v. Jarrin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The law-of-the-case doctrine is a prudential policy of “refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” Powell- Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (citations omitted).
  • Shirts v. Hon. Slasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Shirts v. Hon. Slasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    B. Law of the Case ¶8 Shurts next argues (in two sentences and one citation sentence), that the case should have been dismissed based on the doctrine of law of the case, because Magistrate Judge Araujo “found that the orders could be interpreted in different ways.” She cites Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR- Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, but otherwise makes no other argument.
  • Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Criticized Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ranch Joint Venture, II, -79 (App. 1993) (citation omitted).
  • Tp Racing v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Tp Racing v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    and in doing so focuses primarily on balancing the four equitable criteria.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993).
  • State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993)).
  • Security v. Reyelts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Security v. Reyelts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    P. 65(a); Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, -81 (App. 1993) ("Under Rule 65(a), the trial court may not reach a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing unless the hearing has been properly consolidated with a trial on the merits.").
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ranch 9 FOUR SEAS et al. v. BROWN Decision of the Court Joint Venture, II, (citations omitted).
  • Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Walsh v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79, –32 (App. 1993) ("A party seeks a 'horizontal appeal' when it requests a second trial judge to reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.").
  • Branigan v. Fredrickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Branigan v. Fredrickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, (“The doctrine referred to as ‘law of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” (citations omitted)).
  • Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    I. Law of the Case ¶9 “‘[L]aw of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, -79 , -32 (App.1993) ("A party seeks a 'horizontal appeal’ when it requests a second trial judge to reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new *255 circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.”).
  • Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    The practice "has been consistently criticized and disapproved of by our courts," , because horizontal appeals "waste judicial resources by asking two judges to consider identical motions and because they encourage `judge shopping.'" Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • 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
    Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. *332 275, 278, (citations omitted).
  • Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    As relevant here, the law of the case doctrine is a "procedural doctrine rather than [] a substantive limitation on the court’s power.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    That doctrine is “‘the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.’” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., quoting Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II , , (law of the case doctrine permits trial court to “refus[e] to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court”); Ziegler v. Superior Court , , (“[T]he decision of an appellate co
  • Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004