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.

  • Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    viously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court’ unless ‘an error in the first decision renders it manifestly erroneous or unjust or when a substantial change occurs in essential facts or issues, in evidence, or in the applicable law.’ ” , quoting Powellr-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 279 , , 1332 *151 (App.1993).
  • 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
    Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II
  • 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
    rine, a court acts within its discretion in “refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court” unless “an error in the first decision renders it manifestly erroneous or unjust or when a substantial change occurs in essential facts or issues, in evidence, or in the applicable law.” Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 279 , 1332 (App.1993).
  • Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    That doctrine “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
  • Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Ranch Joint Venture, II, -79 , -32 (App.1993).
  • Special Fund Division v. Tabor 32 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Special Fund Division v. Tabor 32 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    See, , (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice And Procedure § 4478 (1981)).
  • Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    See Holcomb v. United States, 622 F.2d 937, 940 (7th Cir.1980) (law of the case applies only to issues that the appellate court considered and resolved); Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, , (doctrine does not apply “if the prior decision did not actually decide the issue in question, if the prior decision is ambiguous, or if the prior decision does not address the merits”).
  • Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 525 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1995