Cited by

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

385 citing documents.

Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
(citing Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., , Leikvold, 141 Ariz. at 548 , 688 P.2d.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
( , Leikvold, 141 Ariz. at 548 , 688 P.2d.
Lloyd v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. 985 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Lloyd v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. 985 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Arizona's Towing Professionals, Inc. v. State 993 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Arizona's Towing Professionals, Inc. v. State 993 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Columbia Parcar Corp. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 971 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
the Arizona Supreme Court pointed out that the meaning of a statutory term with a special legislative history may not have the same meaning as an identical term used in another statute.
BCAZ Corp. v. Helgoe 976 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
BCAZ Corp. v. Helgoe 976 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
section 12-341.01 if the appeal finally determines a central issue of law “suf *18 fieiently significant that the appeal may be considered as a separate unit.” -94 , -49 (1985).
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
is central to the case” and because “the appeal process [has] finally determined] an issue of law sufficiently significant that the appeal may be considered as a separate unit.” Wagenseller *55 v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985).
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospi *474 tal
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(elements of wrongful interference); Antwerp Diamond Exchange of Am., Inc. v. Better Business Bureau, Inc., -30 , -40 (1981).
Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l. Hosp., , (finding that in deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Rodriguez 953 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Rodriguez 953 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , -94 , -49 (1985).
Consumers International, Inc. v. SYSCO Corp. 951 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Consumers International, Inc. v. SYSCO Corp. 951 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS no evidence of bad cause such as gender discrimination[,] racial discrimination or violation of public policies [as] in Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital [,]
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 950 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1997
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 950 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(reversing summary judgment against at-will employee who alleged she was fired, against public policy, for refusing to participate in arguably criminal conduct of “mooning”).
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.
Voland v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 943 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Voland v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 943 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“ ‘[T]he relevant inquiry always will focus on the contract itself, to determine what the parties did agree to.’ ” Id.
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Henry v. Cook 938 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985).
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The trial court awarded the Fund $10,000 as “a contribution towards attorney fees.” On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court should have denied the Fund’s request for attorneys’
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985), the Lloyds were not in that position.
Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hosp., -94 , -49 (1985).
Mut. Ins. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading Pa. 938 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mutual Insurance v. American Casualty Co. 938 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mutual Insurance v. American Casualty Co. 938 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While MICA has achieved a reversal of an unfavorable trial court order, we do not believe that this appeal may be deemed a “separate unit” -94 , -49 (1985), as MICA contends.
Mut. Ins. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading Pa. 938 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While MICA has achieved a reversal of an unfavorable trial court order, we do not believe that this appeal may be deemed a "separate unit" -94 , -49 (1985), as MICA contends.
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996