Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Creach v. Angulo, 925 P.2d 689.

48 citing documents.

Candace Marie Flynn v. Christopher Cody Allen Flynn 543 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Candace Marie Flynn v. Christopher Cody Allen Flynn 543 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
art. VI, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); (“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.” ()).
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question.”); Judicial Dictum, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“An opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued
MacLean v. Newgioco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
MacLean v. Newgioco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶11 MacLean contends she substantially complied with Rule 55
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(citation omitted) (“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.
Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
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
("Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question."), aff'd
brown/mariscalv. Zoley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
brown/mariscalv. Zoley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, (“the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights 3 BROWN/MARISCAL v. ZOLEY et al. Decision of the Court of the party”); Ariz. R. Civ.
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dictum is a “court's statement on a question not necessarily involved in the case before it.” approved
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.”
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
That waiver meant the court was not “fully advised on the question.”
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(court’s statement on question not involved in case before it is dictum and not binding precedent).
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Id.; (“‘Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question.’”)
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
*50 ¶ 18 “To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.” , ( , ); see Bob H. v. Ariz. of Dep’t Econ.
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
issues that are not contested are not holdings.’ ” FDIC v. McSweeney, 976 F.2d 532, 535 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1241 (7th Cir.1990)); , ("Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question.”).
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Criticized State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(Division One of this court, declining to follow dictum in Arizona Supreme Court opinion, stating: “Dictum is not binding precedent because, inter alia, it is without the force of adjudication and the court may not have been fully advised on the question”).
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(that which is unnecessary to a court’s decision is dictum).
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
approved, -14 , -26 , (1997).
State v. Flournoy 971 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Flournoy 971 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-52 , -93 (App.1996), approved by , (dictum is not binding precedent).
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
The court of appeals affirmed the default judgment, finding that “the Rule 4.2(b) affidavit of circumstances requirement is a technicality and its violation in this case was harmless error.”