Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Garcia v. General Motors Corp., 990 P.2d 1069.

64 citing documents.

Legacy v. Citizens Clean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Legacy v. Citizens Clean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Motors Corp., ¶ 9 (App. 1999).
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garrett v. Platt and Westby Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Motors Corp., ¶ 10 (App. 1999) (holding that because the ruling was not essential to the judgment in the prior case, it was not entitled to preclusive effect in the next case).
Garrett v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garrett v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Motors Corp., ¶ 20 (App. 1999) (holding that application of a forum’s laws depends on which forum has the most significant relationship to the issue).
Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Motors Corp., ¶ 9 (App. 1999)).
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Motors Corp., ¶ 9 (App. 1999)).
Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller 395 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Motors Corp., , 516 ¶ 19
State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Motors Corp., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (citing Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1988), and Baroldy v. Ortho Pharm.
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Motors Corp., -17, ¶ 20 (App. 1999); see also Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (“Restatement”) §§ 6 & 145 (1971).
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Motors Corp., ¶ 9, STATE v. GREENBERG Opinion of the Court 1069, 1073 (App. 1999) (emphasis added)).
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Motors Corp., ¶ 22 , (stating place of injury loses strength as factor if injury is merely fortuitous); see, e.g., Baroldy, 157 Ariz. at 579 , 760 P.2d at 579 (concluding manifestation of disease in North Carolina from diaphragm use fortuitous as plaintiff could have used device in any state).
Clusiau v. Clusiau Enterprises, Inc. 236 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Clusiau v. Clusiau Enterprises, Inc. 236 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Motors Corp., ¶ 9 , see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments (“Restatement”) § 27 (1982) (“When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent actio
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Parra v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. 213 P.3d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Motors Corp., ¶ 20 , (“Which forum’s law applies to a particular issue depends on which forum has the most significant relationship to the issue.”).
Howell v. Hodap 212 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Howell v. Hodap 212 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Motors Corp., ¶ 7 , (noting in the context of collateral estoppel that “the law of the forum to first decide the issue” governs the preclusive effect of the ruling).
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Motors Corp., ¶ 6 , (availability of collateral estoppel reviewed de novo).
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Motors Corp., ¶¶ 10-12 , -74 (App.1999) (ruling on motion in limine did not have preclusive effect when parties later settled case); State ex rel.
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Motors Corp., -73 (App. 1999).
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“We review the availability of collateral estoppel de novo.”).
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 9 , , 716 P.2d, 28, 30 (1986).
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Motors Corp., ¶ 9 , (emphasis added); see also Campbell v. SZL Properties, Ltd., ¶ 9 , (same).