Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jordan v. Jordan, 643 P.2d 1008.

27 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dave Allen Laporte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
This is known as the “mandate rule,” Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., but has also been referred to under the larger umbrella of the “law of the case” doctrine
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
¶18 this Court held that “after decision on appeal and remand the lower court is bound to follow the law set forth in the .
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 25-318, (holding joint tenancy deed failed to contain alleged additional terms and conditions of an oral agreement and therefore did not satisfy statute of frauds).
Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Generally, the lower court must follow the mandate of the higher court in the same case, a principle subordinate to the “law of the case.” ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (“The requirement for issuance of the mandate avoids the risk that the trial and appellate courts could assume jurisdiction of the same case simultaneously.” (emphasis added)).
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sunburst v. Hon. gama/halt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sunburst v. Hon. gama/halt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arizona cases make clear that on remand, the lower court “has no choice but to enter a judgment which complies exactly with that which the higher court has ordered.” accord Sun City Water Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (remand limits further action to “the terms of the mandate”); Tovrea v. Superior Court, 101 3 SUNBURST v. HON.
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
4 See, e.g., Toth, 190 Ariz. at 220-21 , 946 P.2d at 902 -03 ( , , , ).
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See, e.g., Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Comm’n, , (law of the case does not apply where “there has been a change in the applicable law”); (law of the case doctrine inapplicable “where the policy of the law has been changed, by legislative enactment or decision of a higher court, while the case is still pending resolution”).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“[T]he general rule that the lower tribunal must follow the mandate of the higher court is part of the doctrine of the ‘law of the case.’”
Curtis v. Tromble 747 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Curtis v. Tromble 747 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Bryfogle v. Arizona Department of Corrections 739 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Bryfogle v. Arizona Department of Corrections 739 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ford v. Industrial Commission 703 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
appeal dismissed and remanded, , Division 2 of this court held: While rules 703 and 705 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence permit the disclosure of otherwise hearsay evidence to illustrate the basis of the expert witness’ opinion, they do not permit the unrelied upon opinions and conclusions of others to be introduced in cross-e
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Sample v. Sample 663 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Sample v. Sample 663 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983