Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Northern Contracting Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 573 P.2d 65.

58 citing documents.

S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
S S Holdings v. American Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Because the law is clear that “failure of the opposing party to file controverting affidavits does not in and of itself make the granting of the summary judgment appropriate,” (internal quotation marks omitted), and the alleged facts are material and do not raise a pure question of law, see Ryan, 228 Ariz. at 48 ¶ 20, S&S cannot appeal the denial of summary judgment.
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Additionally, “an opponent to a motion for summary judgment does not raise an issue of fact by merely stating in his affidavit that an issue of fact exists, but rather he must show that evidence is available which would justify a trial on that issue.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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).
Nanini v. Nanini 802 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nanini v. Nanini 802 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
221 n. 1A, , 968 n. 1A (App.1987).
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 794 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1990
See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 comment c (1958)
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The Arizona Supreme Court has observed that the non-moving party’s failure to file controverting affidavits “does not in and of itself make the granting of summary judgment ‘appropriate.’ ”
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
MH Investment Co. v. Transamerica Title Insurance 785 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Douglas v. Wilson 774 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Douglas v. Wilson 774 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 781 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 781 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
In Re the Estate of Calligaro v. Owen 768 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Estate of Calligaro v. Owen 768 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1986
Lucchesi v. Frederic N. Stimmell, M.D., Ltd. 716 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1986
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 685 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 685 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Extreme care should be exercised in granting summary judgment
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Overson v. Cowley 664 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Almadova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 649 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1982
Almadova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 649 P.2d 284 Ariz. 1982
Rowe v. Schultz 642 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rowe v. Schultz 642 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
“In a motion for summary judgment neither the trial court nor the appellate court may weigh the evidence [citation omitted] and extreme care should be used in granting a motion for summary judgment.”
Valley National Bank v. J. C. Penney Insurance 628 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Valley National Bank v. J. C. Penney Insurance 628 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Moreover, , : “Even if there is no factual dispute, where possible inferences to be drawn from the circumstances are conflicting, a summary disposition is unwarranted.” Id.
Cooper v. ARIZONA WESTERN COLLEGE, ETC. 610 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980