Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ivancovich v. Meier, 595 P.2d 24.

30 citing documents.

In Re the Guardianship and Conservatorship Of: Robert Sommer 386 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Guardianship and Conservatorship Of: Robert Sommer 386 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In so deciding, we relied on two cases from our supreme court construing the language of § 12-2101(A)(9): P.2d 24 (1979), and McGathy, P.3d 628.
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In RE ESTATE OF McGATHY 246 P.3d 628 Ariz. 2010
In RE ESTATE OF McGATHY 246 P.3d 628 Ariz. 2010
the court concluded that the tax payment order was not appealable under § 12-2101(J) and could be reviewed only in an appeal from a final decree distributing the estate.
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶21 Generally, fraud is considered extrinsic if “it deprives an unsuccessful party of the opportunity to present his case in court.” , 348 — 49, -27 (1979).
Samaritan Health System v. Caldwell 957 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Caldwell 957 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
v. Aiken, , (citation omitted); , (expenses of last illness community obligation).
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
and , however, those cases tend to cut against appellants rather than support their cause.
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(petitioner whose suit sought to determine meaning of testator's will did not forfeit will rights under in terrorem clause forfeiting the gift of any devisee who challenged the will).
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(petitioner whose suit sought to determine meaning of testator’s will did not forfeit will rights under in terrorem clause forfeiting the gift of any devisee who challenged the will).
Cauble v. Osselaer 722 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Cauble v. Osselaer 722 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
As the court’s , holds, however, alleging prejudice due to a delay in complaining about the adequacy of an accounting is insufficient of itself to establish a defense of laches.
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
§ 12-2101(J), , in which our supreme court stated that an "order" for purposes of A.R.S.
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
§ 12-2101(J), , in which our supreme court stated that an “order” for purposes of A.R.S.
Horton v. Shea 669 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Horton v. Shea 669 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Construing the present subsection, , that the word ‘order’ as used in A.R.S.
Felix v. Olivas 643 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Felix v. Olivas 643 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
the court defined and discussed extrinsic fraud.