Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gonzalez v. Satrustegui, 870 P.2d 1188.

91 citing documents.

Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
4 BUSSBERG v. WALKER, et al. Opinion of the Court Dictionary of the English Language, 1990 (5th ed. 2011) (defining verb "witness" as "[t]o see or know by personal experience"); ("witnessed" in § 14-2502(A)(3) requires having "seen the testator sign or acknowledge the will" before signing), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Jung, 210 Ariz. at 206, ¶ 22; (interpreting "witnessed" in sim
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
udgment was granted, and determine “de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” (App. 4 MILLER DESIGNS v. US BANK, et al. Opinion of the Court 1996) (); Ariz. R. Civ.
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See Allyn, 167 Ariz. at 195 , 805 P.2d at 1016
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“[W]e determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” , (citation omitted).
Decca Design Build, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance 77 P.3d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Decca Design Build, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance 77 P.3d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In reviewing a summary judgment, we “determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd. 62 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd. 62 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“[W]e determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Stout v. State Compensation Fund 44 P.3d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 18 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 18 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
DISCUSSION ¶ 8 In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, “we determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review ¶ 7 “On appeal from a summary judgment we determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc., , (choice of law is reviewed de novo).
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Petrusek v. Farmers Insurance 975 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Petrusek v. Farmers Insurance 975 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶8 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted, and “we determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998