Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps, 622 P.2d 469.

60 citing documents.

Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Motley v. Simmons 537 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
As a general rule, “[a]n order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory, nonappealable order.” ¶ 3 (App. 2002) (citation omitted); (“[T]he proper procedure for appellate review of a motion to dismiss is through a petition for special action.”).
Greenham v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Greenham v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, ("The due process clause of the United States Constitution .
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
But it declined to seek appellate relief (available only by way of special action, , ), and it states on appeal that it will apply this court’s ruling on the statutory-interpretation issue to any claim that Wade makes in administrative proceedings.
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Davis v. Davis 284 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Davis v. Davis 284 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(citing Engle Bros., Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Ariz.App.
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
12 Cf. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298-99 (no jurisdiction over automobile dealer and wholesale distributor based only on plaintiff’s foreseeable act of driving car from New York to Oklahoma); -27, -74 (1980) (no jurisdiction over propane gas company that conducted no business in Arizona even though employee who filled propane tank in Michigan knew customer was driving to Arizona).
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
be unfair to have expected the parties or the trial court to have anticipated the standard we adopt today, “we think justice will be best served by allowing the parties the opportunity of presenting any additional evidence relevant to [this] issue.” see also Swick v. Liautaud, 662 N.E.2d 1238, 1243 (Ill.
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Qwest Corporation v. Mark McMahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(“[T]he proper procedure for appellate review of a motion to dismiss is through a petition for special action.”).
Cohen v. Barnard, Vogler & Co. 13 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Cohen v. Barnard, Vogler & Co. 13 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(re-jecting the plaintiffs’ argument that Arizona courts could exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant because the defendant’s employee knew that the plaintiffs would take a motor home to Arizona).
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
we held that there was “no specific time limit as to when a petition for special action must be brought, and acceptance of a petition for special action is discretionary with the court.” We also have considered and rejected the state’s contention that A.R.S.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-05401 845 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-05401 845 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez 796 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Rodriguez 796 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
the court found that because the order was nonappealable, the time limits governing the filing of appeals were not applicable.
Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 779 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 779 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)
Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. 746 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. 746 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance 736 P.2d 2 Ariz. 1987
Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance 736 P.2d 2 Ariz. 1987
-27 , -74 (1980) (skipping the first step and analyzing jurisdiction solely in terms of minimum contacts), this two-step inquiry is redundant because our interpretation extends Rule 4(e)(2) to the permissible limits of due process.
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978)
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
1690, 1696-97 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132, 141 (1978); , see also, United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 90 N.M.
Meyers v. Hamilton Corp. 693 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1984
Meyers v. Hamilton Corp. 693 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1984
Fischer v. Spickler's Leisure World, Inc. 674 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Fischer v. Spickler's Leisure World, Inc. 674 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978)
Danis v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 674 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Danis v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 674 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983