Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 680 P.2d 137.
- Azuly v. C-Back Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Azuly v. C-Back
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
C-Back is correct, of course, that a trial court is not required to “search[] the record to attempt to discover facts which establish or defeat the motion[,]” and the party opposing summary judgment has the obligation to “call the court’s attention to evidence” in the record that supports its position.
- Semilia v. Semilia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Semilia v. Semilia
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“It is also the policy of the court that neither we, the trial court, nor the court of appeals should be required to perform counsel’s work by searching the record to attempt to discover facts which establish or defeat the motion.”).
- Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
McDivitt v. Geico
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Exam’rs, n.7, ¶ 25 (App. 1999); (Courts are not “required to perform counsel’s work by searching the record to attempt to discover facts which establish or defeat the [summary judgment] motion.”).
- Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Fees v. Fees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Fees v. Fees
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 However, at the appellate oral argument, she conceded the trial court should have reviewed the entire record to determine whether Mother was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
- Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Tilley v. Delci
204 P.3d 1082
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“[Nleither we, the trial court, nor the court of appeals should be required to perform counsel’s work by searching the record to attempt to discover facts which establish or defeat the [summary judgment] motion.
- Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
-
Sanchez v. City of Tucson
953 P.2d 168
Ariz. 1998
are generally not appropriate for summary adjudication.” , (citation omitted).
- Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.
866 P.2d 889
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , (Court of Appeals is not.
- White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Explained White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Ward v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies 731 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Ward v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies 731 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986