Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cullison v. City of Peoria, 584 P.2d 1156.

80 citing documents.

Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The State argues that the determination of probable cause on a state of uncontested facts is a question of law that this Court can review de novo, citing Cullison v. City of Peoria, *300 , (“whether a given state of facts constitutes probable cause is always a question of law to be determined by the court”).
Landeros v. City of Tucson 831 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Landeros v. City of Tucson 831 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
(police were not guilty of gross negligence in relying on the identification of an eyewitness).
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Todd v. Melcher, 11 Ariz.App.
Bee-Gee, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 690 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bee-Gee, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 690 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Schroeder v. Hudgins 690 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
“[T]he opponent of a motion for summary judgment does not raise an issue of fact by merely stating in the record that an issue of fact exists, but rather he must show that competent evidence is available which will justify a trial ...”
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hockett v. City of Tucson 678 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Huggins v. Deinhard 654 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Huggins v. Deinhard 654 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
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
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
“Where an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” , 168 n.2, , 1159 n.2 (1978).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 641 Ariz. 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. J-86509 604 P.2d 641 Ariz. 1979
584 * , In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J74449A, 20 Ariz.App.