Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc., 481 P.2d 855.

78 citing documents.

Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Distinguished Pruitt v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶17 In arguing summary judgment was improper, Pruitt relies on Livingston v. Citizen’s Utils., Inc., including a subsequent appeal in that case, Citizen’s Utils.
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See also Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , (summary *124 judgment reversed because unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the issue is one for the jury).
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Lundy v. Prescott Valley, Inc., , Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , , (even if there is no factual dispute, where possible inferences to be drawn from the circumstances are conflicting, summary judgment is improper).
Webster v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1988
Webster v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1988
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc. 734 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc. 734 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Guided by the principle that summary judgment is improper provided there is any genuine issue of material fact, Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , we consider the facts of this case in a light most favorable to Dunn.
Wagner v. City of Globe 722 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1986
Wagner v. City of Globe 722 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1986
Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc.
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. Western American Mortgage Co. 694 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Madsen Ex Rel. Corbin v. Western American Mortgage Co. 694 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Viewing *620 this evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party, see e.g. Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility Co., , it is reasonable to infer from this surprise that they, along with other sellers, may have been misled by the issuance or wording of Western American’s loan commitment letter.
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Since on this appeal we are considering the propriety of the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff, we consider the record in the view most favorable to the plaintiff, Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc.
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
See Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc., , Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 15 Ariz.App.
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , Taylor v. Mueller, 24 Ariz.App.
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Bearing in mind all the relevant rules for reviewing summary judgments, see Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc., , the judgment must be and is affirmed.
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , and Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 15 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. South Bank Corp. 649 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
City of Phoenix v. South Bank Corp. 649 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
While it is not clear that Brown was speaking from firsthand knowledge, and while this affidavit is not specific as to the dates of the various acts described, it implicitly refers to the period prior to the order granting the city possession and, considering the inferences which must be indulged in favor of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment, Livingston v. Citizens Utility, Inc., , we cannot say that the acts did not interfere with access during the relevant six month period.
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Love v. Home Transportation Co. 641 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Nason v. Voight 625 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Nason v. Voight 625 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Kovalik v. Delta Investment Corp. 611 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Kovalik v. Delta Investment Corp. 611 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Rule 56(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 601 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 601 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Byrns v. Riddell, supra; Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , .
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
Harris v. Buckeye Irrigation Co. 578 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1978
Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was granted, Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc., , Serna v. Statewide Contractors, Inc., 6 Ariz.App.
Rodriguez v. Jackson 574 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Rodriguez v. Jackson 574 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Livingston v. Citizen’s Utility, Inc.