Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 724 P.2d 562.

106 citing documents.

In re MH2013-001564 322 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In re MH2013-001564 322 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers, Inc., , (“[Waiver] rule is procedural, not substantive, and may be suspended in our discretion.”).
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (holding when a plaintiff is required to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence, the summary judgment inquiry will be "whether the evidence presented is such that a jury applying that evi-dentiary standard could reasonably find for either the plaintiff or the defendant.” (c
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶11 Finally, citing Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., CBD argues we should suspend the “procedural” rule of waiver.
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Accord Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
Although the Coalition asks us to review those challenges because of their state-wide importance and significance, see Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , this case is not a suitable candidate for such extraordinary relief.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, , (recognizing the rule that “arguments not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal” as a procedural rule that the court may suspend at its own discretion) (citations omitted); , (same); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (exercising discretion to consider issue argued at trial but not raised on appeal).
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Id., 175 Ariz. at 293 , 855 P.2d at 1354 ; see Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., -87 , -73 (1986) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 , 106 S.Ct.
Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993
Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993
See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., -87 , -73 (1986) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56, 106 S.Ct.
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
See, , , 77-78 n. 3, 81 n. 7, , 329-30 n. 3, 333 n. 7 (1991); Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
in which the plaintiff was required to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice, and adopted the following standard: “the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not.” , (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56 , 106 S.Ct.
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Yetman v. English 811 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1991
Yetman v. English 811 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1991
Given the rigorous scrutiny required by the first amendment at both the trial and appellate levels (see Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , and Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union), it will be necessary for courts to carefully examine every alleged defamatory statement and rigorously apply the Milkovich standards to ensure that first amendment concerns are protected.
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The evidence must be sufficient “to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” , (quoting St.
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 796 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1990
Cf. Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (issue not raised in court of appeals may be addressed on review if raised and fully argued in the trial court); see also note 7, infra.
Morris v. Warner 770 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Morris v. Warner 770 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Western Technologies, Inc. v. Neal 768 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.