Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hauskins v. McGillicuddy, 852 P.2d 1226.

28 citing documents.

State v. Tunkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Tunkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶46 Moreover, if Aguilera believed he was entitled to indemnification from Greenberg, he could have pursued that claim after he 19 AGUILERA, et al. v. SANNES, et al. Decision of the Court settled with the Chonczynskis.28 (concluding that a cause of action for indemnity accrued when the parties’ settlement agreement was entered into judgment).
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-48 (App. 1992) (rejecting the argument that differences in the definition of “excusable neglect” advanced by A.R.S.
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Holdings, L.L.C., n.50, ¶ 105 (App. 2012) ().
Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(internal quotation marks and 2 Although a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not typically an appealable order, “this [C]ourt may review such an order when the denial is based strictly on a point of law.”
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
John C. Lincoln Hosp., 208 Ariz. at 539, ¶ 19, 96 P.3d at 537
Burch & Cracchiolo v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Burch & Cracchiolo v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. of Ariz., -66, -09 (App. 1997) (“A denial of a motion for summary judgment is an intermediate order deciding simply that the case should go to trial.”)
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
Co., , ); Thus, , we held that under a statute giving the State a right to liability indemnity against an attorney who failed to properly file a notice of claim, a settlement that included a covenant not to execute did not preclude indemnity.
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co. of Am., ¶ 11 , (citations omitted) ( , ).
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
review denied with clarification, , in support of its argument Fisher owed it a duly to defend.
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
allows the denial of summary judgment to be reviewed on appeal if it presents only an issue of law.