Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 957 P.2d 1007.

96 citing documents.

Camasura v. Camasura 358 P.3d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Camasura v. Camasura 358 P.3d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arballo v. Orona-Hardee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marks v. Hon. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marks v. Hon. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. of Ariz., (“A denial of a motion for summary judgment is an intermediate order deciding simply that the case should go to trial.”).
Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cml-Az v. Orosel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cml-Az v. Orosel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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.”)
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co. of Ariz., which is prescribed by statute; we have no authority to entertain an appeal over which we do not have jurisdiction, see Hall Family Props., Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev.
Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Ramon Limon 270 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Ramon Limon 270 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. of Ariz., -66 , -09 (App.1997) (declining to consider merits of appeal where parties had stipulated to final judgment in order to create an “appealable order”).
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co. of Am., -66 , -09 (App.1997).
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. 965 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. 965 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by