Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 710 P.2d 1025.

385 citing documents.

State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(finding preamble to Employment Protection Act, which purported to invalidate supreme court’s , “devoid of operative effect” because “it manifested] the legislature’s intent to usurp judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers doctrine”); see also Ariz. Const. art. Ill (dividing powers of state government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches and stating that
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985).
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
After consideration of the factors established in Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., , we award reasonable attorneys’ fees to Glacy.
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Id.; see also Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., -88 , -43 (1985), superceded by A.R.S.
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
for the proposition that “notice of intent to seek fees should be given before ‘each stage’ of a lawsuit, furthering the public policy of encouraging settlement.” *133 ¶ 8 Liebert/ISS argue that Rule 21 is a rule of appellate procedure that pertains to seeking an award of attorneys’ f
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, e.g., Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., -76 , -31 (1985).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Co., , ( , see also Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., , ).
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
-33- Ariz. 71, ( P.2d 565 (1986)); see also Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., ).
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The implied covenant “requires [that] ‘neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of their agreement.’ ” , quoting Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem.’l Hosp.
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Accordingly, we agree with GCCC that “[o]nly in th[o]se eases in which a statute does not provide any remedy, but in which there is a violation of the statute, do the public policy provisions of the EPA apply.” 2 ¶ 17 Taylor also contends the trial court’s ruling “run[s] , ” As Taylor points out, Wagenseller recognized a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy underlying Arizona’s indecent exposure statute, A.R.S.
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 14 , the Arizona Supreme Court recognized that Arizona has adopted the American common law employment-at-will doctrine that initially gave employers unfettered discretion to terminate employees for any reason.
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
¶ 19 This legislation, according to the legislative preamble inserted ahead of the statutory text, purports to respond to this court’s , where we first approved a tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 18 -94 , -49 (1985), to support its request for attorney’s fees incurred in the appeal.
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See R & M Oxford Const., , (resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence is within the province of the jury); , (jury selects which conflicting inference or conclusion is the most reasonable).
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 15 Cook has requested attorney’s -94 , -49 (1985) (“successful party” under Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated section 12-341.01 is not limited to those who have favorable final judgment at conclusion of appeal but may include those who achieve reversal of an unfavorable order central to the case.)
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999