Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hosogai v. Kadota, 700 P.2d 1327.

50 citing documents.

Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
Although statutes of limitations are generally considered procedural, a statute of repose defines a substantive right, see Resolution Trust Corp. v. Olson, 768 F. Supp. 283, 285 (D. Ariz. 1991); (Mont.
Gonzales v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzales v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 13 (1998) (equitable tolling is a recognized exception to the application of a statute of limitations “when necessary to prevent injustice”); (“The equitable tolling doctrine is rooted in a number of common law exceptions to statutes of limitations .
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
superseded by statute, 1986 Ariz. Sess.
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 20 A statute of repose “defines a substantive right.” Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 24 , ( , ).
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
unless tolling would be inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute” (citations and quotations omitted)); Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 & n.3 (1990) (citing American Pipe as an example of “allow[ing] equitable tolling” in certain situations); -33, -33 (1985) (repeatedly citing American Pipe as an example of equitable tolling).
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 11 Further, the doctrine of equitable tolling, a concept rooted in the common law, , 3 is not applicable here.
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(applying doctrine 8 when second wrongful death claim untimely filed after successful verdict on first claim overturned on appeal due to defective service of process); Kosman, ¶¶ 6, 10, 16 P.3d at 213 (applying doctrine w
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kosman v. State 16 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(quoting Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc., , *187 65 (App.1997)); , 700 P.2d at 1327, 1330 (1985) (finding that at common law, petitioner’s undenominated arguments preserved doctrine for appeal).
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Equitable Tolling ¶ 31 Finally, plaintiffs make the additional alternative argument that the doctrine of equitable tolling should have precluded dismissal of their complaint as untimely filed
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
a wrongful death action, our supreme court recognized and applied the doctrine, stating that “[e]quitable tolling is appropriate when it would effectuate: 1) the policies underlying [a remedial] statute, and 2) the purposes underlying the statute of limitations,” citing Burnett v. Ne
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Janson v. Christensen 808 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1991
Janson v. Christensen 808 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1991
Despite the equitable discrepancies in their argument, the doctors maintain that this court’s , supports their restrictive interpretation.
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Templer v. Zele 803 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Templer v. Zele 803 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
our supreme court’s call for a saving statute, the court held that the statute of limitations for a second action was tolled by the filing of the first action, which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process.
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 786 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 786 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
§ 12-504 was the legislature’s response to our supreme court’s call for a
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
The record reflects the bill sponsor’s response to the reference to a
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. Rail N Ranch Corp. 752 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. Rail N Ranch Corp. 752 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
discussed circumstances where equitable tolling of the statute was appropriate.
Grim v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 740 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Grim v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 740 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Walker, 107 Ariz. at 512 , 489 P.2d at 851 (“Although a dismissal under [Uniform] Rule V(d) is without prejudice, such an order must be issued only after careful consideration because justice requires that when possible a matter be determined upon its merits.”); , (procedural rules should not become a “shield for serious inequity”); W.T.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Brudnock 727 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1986
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
See General Index: The Journal of the House of Representatives (1965-84); General Index: Journal of the Senate (1965-84)