17193-PR Precedential Processed

Hagen v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co.

Arizona Supreme Court · Filed January 3, 1984 · 675 P.2d 1310

The holding in the court’s own words

After review of the record, we conclude that the opinion of the court of appeals is correct and that all issues were properly decided.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Conner 786 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1990
State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988

all 14 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Salzman 138 Ariz. 521
Hagen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance 675 P.2d 1340

Opinion text

FELDMAN, Justice. This is a contested garnishment proceeding brought against an insurer by the insured’s assignee. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the assignee, Hagen. The court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions. Hagen v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, 138 Ariz. 521 , 675 P.2d 1340 (App.1983). Both parties have petitioned us for review. See Rule 23(a), Arizona Rules of Civ.App.Proc., 17A A.R.S. After review of the record, we conclude that the opinion of the court of appeals is correct and that all issues were properly decided. Ordinarily, we would simply deny review. However, while denial of review usually attests our approval of the result reached by the court of appeals, it does not necessarily indicate our approval of the legal analysis contained in the opinion. See generally Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes, 439 U.S. 463, 477 , 99 S.Ct. 740, 749 , 58 L.Ed.2d 740 n. 20 (1979). Because we do agree with the court’s legal analysis in the case at bench, and because the opinion deals with several issues not previously settled in this State, we hereby adopt the opinion of the court of appeals and indicate our agreement with the legal principles set forth in that opinion. HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and HAYS and CAMERON, JJ., concur.