Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Owen v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., 649 P.2d 278.

74 citing documents.

MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nevertheless, “[n]otice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are critical factors in determining whether an amendment should be granted.”
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Citizens Utilities Co. v. New West Homes, Inc. 848 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Citizens Utilities Co. v. New West Homes, Inc. 848 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
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
Carrillo v. State 817 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Carrillo v. State 817 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend if the amendment comes late and raises new issues requiring preparation for factual discovery).
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Round Valley Unified School District No. 10 789 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Round Valley Unified School District No. 10 789 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Moore v. Toshiba International Corp. 772 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
Wiper v. Downtown Development Corp. 732 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1987
336, 338-39 , -20 (1969), -76 , 223 P. 116, 120 (1924)
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Rule 15(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Followed Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
We adhere to the principles set forth by our courts time and time again, , that leave to amend is discretionary but that amendments will be liberally allowed since trial on the merits of a claim is favored and amendments will be permitted unless there has been undue delay, dilatory action or undue prejudice.