Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Azore, LLC v. Bassett, 341 P.3d 466.
- KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Socop v. Socop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Socop v. Socop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- R & a Smart v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
R & a Smart v. Frank
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Azore, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (“[W]aiver is a procedural concept that we do not rigidly employ in a mechanical fashion, and we may use our discretion in determining whether to address waived issues.”).
- Alulddin v. Alfartousi 532 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Alulddin v. Alfartousi
532 P.3d 1172
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The waiver rule, however, is procedural rather than jurisdictional, Azore, –27, ¶ 7 (App. 2014), and in our discretion, we address Husband’s claims, ¶ 17 (App. 2007).
- Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Avalon Hills v. Lang
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, e.g., Azore, ¶ 7 (App. 2014).
- Ashkenazi v. Baldino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Ashkenazi v. Baldino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 438 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs.
438 P.3d 676
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Azore, LLC v. Bassett , , 427 ¶ 9
- Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Turner v. Steiner 398 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Turner v. Steiner 398 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Glazer v. State 396 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Glazer v. State 396 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Parsons v. Arizona Department of Health Services 395 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Parsons v. Arizona Department of Health Services 395 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety 381 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Marianne N. v. Department of Child Safety
381 P.3d 264
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Newspapers, Inc., Azore, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (“[W]aiver is a procedural concept .
- McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board 379 P.3d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board
379 P.3d 227
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although the Board did not file a cross-appeal, see Maricopa County v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“In the absence of a cross-appeal the appellee can defend only as to the items allowed below and cannot present rejected claims.”), we may nonetheless use our discretion in determining whether to address the issues, see Azore, –27 ¶¶ 6–7, –69 (App. 2014).
- Allen v. Sanders ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Allen v. Sanders ex rel. County of Maricopa
372 P.3d 304
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1(a), and the issue is a purely legal question of first impression and statewide importance, Azore, , 426 ¶ 2
- James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015