Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sato v. Van Denburgh, 599 P.2d 181.

105 citing documents.

Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
(explaining that “the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, or when the plaintiff is first able to sue” (internal citations omitted)).
U. S. Bank v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
U. S. Bank v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sadeghi v. Majaly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 56(e); (providing that a non-moving party must “present, either by affidavit or some other evidence, facts controverting the [moving party’s] affidavit”).
Shafer v. McCombs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shafer v. McCombs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 12-542; (professional negligence); Alaface v. Nat’l Inv.
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Otherwise, much of it would simply collapse on itself.” (affirming that if a party fails to controvert the moving party’s statement of facts in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party’s facts may be considered true).
FLAGSTAFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. Design Alliance Inc. 212 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
FLAGSTAFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. Design Alliance Inc. 212 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, ¶¶ 12-13 , (discussing basic elements of attorney malpractice); , (recognizing tort of professional negligence against accountant and applying two-year statute of limitations requirement applicable to tort claims).
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(recognizing general principle but applying shorter statute of limitations based on “facts as alleged in the instant case”); see also La Canada Hills Ltd. P’ (specific statute of limitations governs over general).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
§ 12-548); , (interpreting A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
fau lt”); Nolde v. F rankie, 964 P .2d 477, 48 4 (1998) (“ [A] cau se of action based on sexual abuse accrues when th e plaintiff be comes aw are of the ‘w hat’ and the ‘who’ elements of the claim, 23 i.e., the condu ct constituting the sexual abuse and the identity of the abuser.”) (citation omitted); (cause of action accr ues w hen plain tiff k now s or reaso nably should know of “defendant’s negligent conduct” or “whe n the plaintiff is first able to su e”); 284 (App .
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
(legal malpractice); (same); P.2d 30 (App. 1980) (medical malpractice); (accounting malpractice action accrues when plaintiff knew or should have known of defendant’s negligent conduct) (citing Morrison, P.2d 590; Abernethy v. Smith, 17 Ariz.App.
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1994); , Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aaron v. Fromkin 994 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Generally, a cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff is first able to sue.”
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Vega v. Morris 910 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1996
Vega v. Morris 910 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1996
Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
See, , (failure to controvert properly supported motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other evidence means admission of movant’s version of facts); 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2739 (1983).
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995