Cited by

-47 (1974) (summary judgment improper in action by landlord against tenant where questions of fact existed on whether adequate notice of default was given, as to abandonment, and on landlord’s duty to mitigate damages).

Conversely, summary judgment is inappropriate if “the facts, even if undisputed, would allow reasonable minds to differ.”

(“Arizona courts have consistently found the successful party eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees” in appeals based on a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.).

ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶11 “In reviewing the superior court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider questions of law de novo but review the facts in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” ¶ 8 (App. 2020) ().

Id.; (trial court must make “preliminary determination whether the conduct may be considered so outrageous and extreme as to permit recovery”).

Resort Corp., -01, -88 (App. 1994).

“[W]e view the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”

(“[W]hen the duty alleged to be breached arises whether or not the contract exists, the action arises in tort and the successful party may not claim fees under A.R.S.

Resort Corp., , (“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, we have de novo review of a question of law.”).

(“Summary judgment is inappropriate where the facts, even if undisputed, would allow reasonable minds to differ.”); (although facts related to child’s near drowning were largely undisputed, summary judgment rev