Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Santanello v. Cooper, 475 P.2d 246.

40 citing documents.

Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-64 , -48 (1970) (appellate court is limited in its review of an order granting a new trial to considering only those grounds specified in the order); , (appellant cannot argue grounds other than those stated in court order that
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(raising a cross-issue is “the most logical and just method” for an appellee to argue grounds in support of the judgment that do not appear in the order but were set forth in the motion; no cross-appeal is required); Bryce v. St.
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tennen v. Lane 716 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
DeLozier v. Smith, 22 Ariz.App.
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Appellate Handbook § 3.2.2.
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
our supreme court held that where an appellee seeks to uphold a new trial order on grounds set forth in his motion but not relied upon by the trial court, it is not necessary to cross-appeal.
Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kalil Bottling Co. v. Burroughs Corp. 619 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Kalil Bottling Co. v. Burroughs Corp. 619 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co., 24 Ariz.App.
Stiles v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stiles v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Neitman v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Neitman v. Industrial Commission 510 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Since *322 the trial court gave as its reason for ordering the new trial the commission of error in ruling that the statutes of limitations had run, appellees contend that appellate review is limited to that question, , where our Supreme Court stated that review of an order granting a new trial is limited to those grounds specified in the order.
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Estabrook v. J. C. Penney Co., supra
City of Kingman v. Havatone 485 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
City of Kingman v. Havatone 485 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971