Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL, 11 P.3d 413.

68 citing documents.

AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 29 , ("Our policy, and the policy of most appellate courts, is that issues not clearly raised in appellate briefs are deemed waived.").
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Cesar Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Cesar Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Comm’n, n.2, n.2 (App. 2006), quoting Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, (alteration added).
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“And, as a general rule, ‘[o]n appeal from summary judgment, a party may not advance new theories or raise new issues to attempt to secure a reversal.’ ” , quoting Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, n. 2 , , 418 n. 2 (App.2000).
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, ¶ 29 , (citation omitted) (“Our policy, and the policy of most appellate courts, is that issues not clearly raised in appellate briefs are deemed waived.”).
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, ¶29
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
opening brief was sufficient notice to the University of his contention that the ALJ had lacked the authority to reduce his award.2 Moreover, the University failed to address Meiners’s res judicata 2 The rule that issues not “clearly raised” in the opening brief are waived is not jurisdictional, but instead is a “policy of judicial restraint.” Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell
Reinke v. Alliance Towing 88 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Reinke v. Alliance Towing 88 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶22 Alliance cites Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, , St.
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, as a general rule, “[o]n appeal from summary judgment, a party may not advance new theories or raise new issues to attempt to secure a reversal.” Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, n.2, n.2 (App. 2000)