Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald, 505 P.2d 1039.

30 citing documents.

Nobles v. Noce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nobles v. Noce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Madisons Chevrolet, (appellee must file a cross-appeal when “seek[ing] to enlarge on appeal the relief the appellee seeks”); (“The court of appeals acquires no jurisdiction to review matters not contained in the notice of appeal.”); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reade did not cross-appeal from the court’s denial of her fee request, thus this argument is not properly before us. See ARCAP 8(b) (“A party to a superior court judgment may take a cross-appeal by filing a notice of cross-appeal with the clerk of the superior court that entered the judgment.”); Madisons Chevrolet, (party must file a cross-appeal to attack judgment or order being appealed).
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Madisons Chevrolet, -103 , -42 (1973)
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
In Madisons Chevrolet, , the supreme court was faced with a similar situation.
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
It is a well established rule in Arizona that “an appellate court will consider cross-questions by the appellee when they support the actions of the trial court, (citation omitted).” Madisons Chevrolet
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
54, 55 , which contains a statement of law appearing in many other Arizona opinions, “Punitive damages are not to compensate for a loss, but rather to punish for misconduct, and it (sic) must, therefore be a matter of discretion for the trier of fact.” , and Madisons Chevrolet
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
55 , Madisons Chevrolet, , and such an award will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unreasonable under the circumstances.
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Schmidt v. MEL CLAYTON FORD, ETC. 601 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Madisons Chevrolet, , involved the sale of a “new executive demonstrator” which had been driven by sales personnel of the defendant and had not been previously registered.
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Madison Chevrolet, , Nielson, supra.
Imports v. Orton 527 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Imports v. Orton 527 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Madison Chevrolet, , Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973