Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections, 934 P.2d 801.

134 citing documents.

Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Section 12- 349 was enacted with the express purpose of reducing groundless lawsuits.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
243, , 807 (App. 1997) ).
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., (citing Gilbert v. Bd.
Rodriguez v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rodriguez v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., –42 (App. 1997).
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections, ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (“[W]e must avoid interpreting a statute so as to render any of its language mere surplusage .
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Newspapers Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., ).
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson, Az, Llc,...william Amoureux 378 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson, Az, Llc,...william Amoureux 378 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrs.
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 12–349(A)(1)–(4); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
13 SHOEMAKE et al. v. ESTANCIA Decision of the Court second action than that needed in the first, then the second action is barred.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Schaub v. Nfra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schaub v. Nfra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Newspaper, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
is clearly erroneous.” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., -44, -08 (App. 1997) (holding preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard under A.R.S.
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers v. Dep’t of Corrs.
Clark v. Anjackco Inc. 333 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Clark v. Anjackco Inc. 333 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections
Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., State of Ariz.
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Peterson v. Newton 307 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Peterson v. Newton 307 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Arizona, the doctrine rests on the long-accepted principle that “[i]t is against public policy to split a cause of action and to make two or more suits of it when one is sufficient.” , 256 P. 356, 357 (1927); see also Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., State of Ariz., , (noting that a purpose of the claim preclusion doctrine is “barring the splitting of claims”).
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Carrs.
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr.
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Thus, the findings “need only be specific enough to allow an appellate court „to test the validity of the judgment.‟” Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrs., quoting Miller v. Bd.
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections, , (“[W]e presume that the legislature does not enact superfluous or reiterative legislation.”); , (recognizing presumption that the legislature does not include provisions which are redundant, void, inert, trivial, or sup

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by