Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Oliver, 873 P.2d 668.

75 citing documents.

Calovich v. Wal mart/wal Mart A Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Calovich v. Wal mart/wal Mart A Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA review is confined to “only those matters in the record.”
Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶11 We are unpersuaded by Coe’s
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Abriani v. Slaughter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Abriani v. Slaughter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We will not consider Mother’s exhibits on appeal as “[n]ew exhibits cannot be introduced on appeal to secure reversal.” n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2008) (citations omitted); (appellate court considers “only those matters in the record before us”).
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, (movant under Rule 56(f) must, by affidavit, inform “the court of: (1) the particular evidence beyond the party’s control; (2) the location of the evidence; (3) what the party believes the evidence will reveal; (4) the methods to be used to obtain it; and (5) an estimate of the amount of time the addi
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Njie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“We will consider only those matters in the record before us and presume that, as to matters not in our record, the record before the trial court supported its ruling.”) (citing Nat’l Advert.
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶41 An abuse through excessive publication results from “publication to an unprivileged recipient not reasonably necessary to protect the interest upon which the privilege is grounded.”
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Jones v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jones v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“We will consider only those matters in the record before us.”).
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The party must file a motion with a supporting affidavit specifying “(1) the particular evidence beyond the party’s control; (2) the location of the evidence; (3) what the party believes the evidence will reveal; (4) the methods to be used to obtain it; and (5) an estimate of the amount of time the additional discovery will require.” (citation omitted).
Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We therefore do not consider them in reaching our decision here, (“We will consider only those matters in the record before us.”), and regardless, we find adequate support within the record to sustain the juvenile court’s denial of the motion to intervene.
Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
354 (1993) (“substantial truth” defense to defamation claim); Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 616-18, 688 P.2d at 624-26 (discussing conditional privileges in general and noting publication with actual malice abuses such privileges; further noting fair reporting privilege is “special” because publisher may make knowingly false defamatory statements without abusing the privilege); (communications to public officials regarding the work of their subordinates is subject to conditional privilege).
Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
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
The letter was not part of the record below, however, and although Best has attached it to his opening brief, "[n]ew exhibits cannot be introduced on appeal to secure reversal.” , , (appellate court considers "only those matters in the record before us”).
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Melgar v. Campo 161 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Melgar v. Campo 161 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
361 ¶ 7, (judicial proceedings); , (legislative or executive proceedings); , (litigators); , (required by law).
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002