Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State, 599 P.2d 175.

42 citing documents.

Mitchell v. Martinet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mitchell v. Martinet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Alosi v. Citibank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Alosi v. Citibank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[S]ummary judgments are final judgments on the merits.”).
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
(discussing separate functions of levying a tax and computing a tax rate).
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
North Canyon v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
North Canyon v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shadid v. State 421 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Shadid v. State 421 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Gas Co. v. State , , 221, , 177 (1979) ("Judicial acts ...
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Gas Co. v. State, 123 21 ADER v. ESTATE OF FELGER Opinion of the Court Ariz. 219, 222, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying Ader’s motion for a new trial.10 See Sandretto, 322 P.3d at 172; Duwyenie, 207 P.3d at 756; see also Pi’Ikea, n.7, (we may affirm trial court’s r
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A mandamus action may only be brought if the statutory duty imposed on the public official or board is purely “ministerial.”
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Ariz. 54, ¶ 7, see also Aldrich &
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 291 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 291 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
but see Taylor v. Sturgell, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct.
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A grant of summary judgment is a “final judgment on the merits.”
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In order for res judicata to apply, there must be a common “identity of the parties, the capacity in which they appear, the subject matter, and the cause of action.”
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Grand v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co. 837 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Grand v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co. 837 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In order for res judicata to apply, there must be (1) a final judgment on the merits; and (2) a common “identity of the parties, the capacity in which they appear, the subject matter, and the cause of action.” , cert.
Dowell v. Ross 657 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1982
Dowell v. Ross 657 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by