Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc., 596 P.2d 365.

30 citing documents.

Furst v. mayne/zia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Furst v. mayne/zia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A party should be granted leave to amend “if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief.” Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc., (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Metro Phx Bank v. Rpm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Metro Phx Bank v. Rpm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶22 Appellants’ reliance on Spitz v. Bache & Co., is equally misplaced.
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
may be a proper subject of relief.” Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc., (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sonoran v. Bank of the West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ct., (quoting Spitz v. Bache & Co., ).
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
"[P]rejudice is 'the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.'" Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc., ().
Al Carranza v. madrigal/investigation Services, Inc. 354 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2015
Al Carranza v. madrigal/investigation Services, Inc. 354 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2015
“Prejudice is ‘the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.’” Owen, 133 Ariz. at 79, 649 P.2d at 282 (quoting Spitz v. Bache & Co., ).
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
may be a proper subject of relief.’ ” , (quoting Spitz v. Bache & Co., , ); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco 981 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco 981 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Spitz v. Bache & Co.
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
may be a proper subject of relief.” Spitz v. Bache & Co. Inc.
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(citing Spitz v. Bache & Co., , ).
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
§ 12-2101(B); Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc., , (reversing the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
Commercial Cornice & Millwork, Inc. v. Camel Construction Services. Corp. 739 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Commercial Cornice & Millwork, Inc. v. Camel Construction Services. Corp. 739 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc.
Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Such prejudice is the “inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.” Owen, supra, 133 Ariz. at 79 , 649 P.2d at 282 , quoting Spitz v. Bache & Co., at 531 , at 366 (1979).
Owen v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 649 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1982
Owen v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ. 649 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1982
227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Spitz v. Bache & Co., , Rule 15(a); Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Dudley v. Superior Court 597 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1979
Dudley v. Superior Court 597 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1979
See Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc.