DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., 979 P.2d 534.

46 citing documents.

  • Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
  • Garza v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Garza v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶25 For the same reason, we also reject Garza’s contention that fact questions remain as to whether Kaufman’s methodologies represented available “HHG options to use more accurate endpoints that will calculate more accurate HHG miles.” See Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (“To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the [movant] need only demonstrate an absence of evidence for an essential element of the complaint.”).
  • Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (as corrected).
  • Travelers v. Bollschweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Travelers v. Bollschweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (movant may succeed on summary judgment by showing “an absence of evidence for an essential element of the complaint”).
  • Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
  • J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 1999), as corrected (May 3, 1999).
  • Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Summary judgment should be granted ‘if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (quoting Orme Sch.
  • Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Summary judgment should be granted ‘if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (quoting Orme Sch.
  • Salucci v. Arz Partners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Salucci v. Arz Partners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “Summary judgment should be granted ‘if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (quoting Orme Sch.
  • Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “Summary judgment should be granted ‘if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (quoting Orme Sch.
  • Ianni v. St. Just Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Ianni v. St. Just Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    JUST, et al. Decision of the Court little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (quoting Orme Sch.
  • Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Giraudo 389 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Giraudo 389 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999), as corrected (May 3, 1999).
  • Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 1999).
  • Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Cf. Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., - 09, ¶ 9, -37 (App. 1999) (holding that real estate agents’ duty of fair dealing required disclosure of known latent defects in home).
  • National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Serv., Inc., ¶ 7 , Aranki v. RKP Inv., Inc., , Mohave Elec.
  • State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 , Great Am.
  • Mutschler v. City of Phoenix 129 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Mutschler v. City of Phoenix 129 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Aranki v. RKP Inn, Inc., ¶ 6
  • Nelson v. Grayhawk Properties L.L.C. 104 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Nelson v. Grayhawk Properties L.L.C. 104 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Aranki v. RKP Invs., Inc., ¶ 6 , (citations omitted).
  • Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Cf. Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., , (“[G]iven that the ...
  • S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Distinguished S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ¶ 28 The next two cases that the appellants cite, Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., , and National Housing Industries v. E.L.
  • Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    ¶ 4 “Our standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is de novo for both factual and legal determinations.” Aranki v. RKP Inv., Inc.
  • Lombardo v. Albu 14 P.3d 288 Ariz. 2000
  • Lombardo v. Albu 14 P.3d 288 Ariz. 2000
    Because of the importance of the issue, and a conflict with Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., , we granted review.
  • Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶ 17 Our recent holding in Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc., , is also not to the contrary.