Cited by

See State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., n.1 (App. 1997) (“Because he is not an attorney, he cannot represent his wife in court.

Residence 1810 E. Second Ave., (“[T]he defendant who appears in the matter and litigates it on the merits waives any objection over the failure to properly serve him with process.”).

See State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., (where party had actual knowledge of the proceeding and “took full advantage of it by contesting the matter all the way through judgment,” any failure to provide the notice prescribed by the statute caused no prejudice.

Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 483 n.24 (1982) (suggesting “what a full and fair opportunity to litigate entails is the procedural requirements of due process”); State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., (“The availability of appeal is important in determining whether there has been a full and fair opportunity to litigate.”).

MYERS/STATE JUDGE VÁSQUEZ, Concurring reasons,” petitioner did not waive other claims under Rule 32.1 when first petition was limited to requesting delayed appeal under subsection (f)); State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., (“Although [A.R.S.

State v. One Single Family Residence at 1810 E. Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz., n.1 (App. 1997) (finding that where only the husband signed the notice of appeal, and he was not an attorney, he could not represent his wife in court and the notice of appeal was invalid as to her); Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (holding that a husband who is not a member of the b

See State v. One Single Family Residence at 1810 E. Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz.

See State v. 1810 E. Second Ave.

App. P. 13(a)(6); State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., n.2, n.2 (App. 1997) (holding appellate court will not consider assertions unsupported by citation to the record).

See State v. One Single Family Residence at 1810 East Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz., n. 1, n. 1 2 STRATTON v. WEAVER Decision of the Court ¶5 Given the amount in controversy, the case was referred to mandatory arbitration.

See State v. One Single Family Residence at 1810 E. Second Ave., , 2 n. 2, , 167 n. 2 (App.1998) (noting that the court will not consider factual assertions in appellant's opening brief that are not supported by citations to the record).

State v. One Single Family Residence (Wheatcroft)

See State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., , (large number of immature marijuana plants and budget documents were sufficient evidence to show act committed for financial gain).

a; see also State v. One Single Family Residence at 1810 E. Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz., -7 , -72 (App.1997) (declining to apply collateral estoppel to criminal sentence because State could not have appealed the sentence); S. Leasing Comp.

But cf. State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., -7 , -72 (App.1997) (trial court’s finding at sentencing, following guilty plea, not entitled to preclusive effect because there was no actual litigation and state had no opportunity to appeal).

See also State v. 1810 East Second Ave., , (although not expressly stated in the statutes, legislature must have intended that superior court gains jurisdiction over a forfeiture proceeding when state seizes the property to be forfeited).