Cited by

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

91 citing documents.

Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence most favorably to the party opposing summary judgment 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.” Gonzalez v. Satrustegui
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Allstate Insurance v. Powers 949 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Allstate Insurance v. Powers 949 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the trial court erred in its application of the law.” , see also Benevides v. Arizona Property & Cas.
Lane v. TERRY H. PILLINGER, PC 939 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Lane v. TERRY H. PILLINGER, PC 939 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
"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.”
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
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“[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.”
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County 943 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County 943 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
870 P.2d XI88, 1193 (App.1993).
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
1 We view the facts favorably to Appellant 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.”
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In conducting our review, 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.” Gonzalez v. Satrustegui
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
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
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 930 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 930 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“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.”
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
When we review a trial court’s decision to grant 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.”
Suzico, Inc. v. Maricopa County 928 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Suzico, Inc. v. Maricopa County 928 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we view the facts favorably to Galati, the party against whom judgment 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.”
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY When reviewing the trial court’s summary judgment, this court views the evidence favorably toward the party against whom summary judgment was granted and determines “de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by