Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n, 662 P.2d 131.

49 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
& Loan Ass’n, cf. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, (Bales, J., dissenting) (“When .
Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 320 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 320 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
& Loan Ass’n, quoting Castillo v. Indus.
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
& Loan Ass’n, , (“[W]e consider decisions of coordinate courts as highly persuasive and binding, unless we are convinced that the prior decisions are based upon clearly erroneous principles, or conditions have changed so as to render these prior decisions inapplicable.”) (quoting Castillo v. Indus.
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
& Loan Ass’n, , (emphasis added).
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Turley v. Ethington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Turley v. Ethington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
& Loan Ass’n, quoting Castillo v. Indus.
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
& Loan Assn, , (quoting Castillo v. Indus.
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
& Loan Assoc., , (quoting Castillo v. Industrial Comm’n, 21 Ariz.App.
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
& Loan Ass’n, , (citations omitted).
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
& Loan Ass’n, , (noting that, “[a]bsent a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court,” a decision by one division of the court of appeals was persuasive with the other division).
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass’n
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Criticized State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Assoc., , the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “[T]he principle of stare decisis and the need for stability in the law in order to have an efficient and effective functioning of our judicial machinery dictate that we consider decisions of coordinate courts as highly persuasive and binding, unless w
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 760 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 760 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Although Division One decisions are not binding on this court, “[a]bsent a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court compelling a contrary result, a decision by one division of the Court of Appeals is persuasive with the other division.”
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
The court, however, reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Western on the declaratory judgment claim, reasoning that a 1983 case, Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association, , clearly established that Western’s stated conditions for its consent to sale do amount to an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
& Loan Ass’n, , Pena v. Industrial Comm’n
National Indemnity Co. v. St. Paul Insurance Companies 724 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
National Indemnity Co. v. St. Paul Insurance Companies 724 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Scappatici v. Southwest Savings and Loan Ass’n
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
§ 1701j-3(c) , our Supreme Court held that, for purposes of applying the exception to federal preemption created by 12 U.S.C.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Followed State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
8 See Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass’n
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere 694 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere 694 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
“Absent a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court compelling a contrary result, a decision by one division of the Court of Appeals is persuasive with the other division.” Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association