Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565.

327 citing documents.

Cml-Az v. Orosel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cml-Az v. Orosel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
CML-AZ v. OROSEL Decision of the Court (applying Vagnozzi and concluding appellant’s motion, which neither cited Rule 59(a) nor any of its substantive grounds for relief, did not qualify as a time-extending motion); vacated in part on other grounds, P.2d 565 (1986) (citing Vagnozzi and explaining “our supreme court held that a motion for a new trial must meet two requirements.
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 20, Noble v. Nat’l Am.
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-57 , -73 (1986) (quoting Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
162, 168 , for the proposition that a defendant in a dispute over land is subject to punitive damages for conduct that demonstrates “reckless indifference to the interests of others.” After our decision in Campbell, however, , held that punitive damages are not available absent proof of an evil mind, meaning proof of intent to injure or acts that are in conscious disregard of an unjustifiable substantial risk of significant harm to another.
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
That covenant prevents any party from acting “to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
An insurer’s failure to pay a claim is not unreasonable when the claim’s validity is “fairly debatable.”
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(bad faith claimant “may recover all the losses caused by [the] defendant’s conduct, including damages for pain, humiliation and inconvenience, as well as for pecuniary losses”).
Quintero v. Rodgers 212 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Quintero v. Rodgers 212 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
*541 ¶ 15 We rely on a , that clarify Arizona’s position on punitive damage recovery.
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at 330 , 723 P.2d at 679 ( , ).
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“[B]ecause of the special relationship between an insurer and its insured, the insured may maintain an action to recover tort damages----”).
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Belliard v. Becker 166 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Belliard v. Becker 166 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
To qualify for a punitive damage award in this ease, Belliard had to prove that Becker “consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of significant harm to others.” , ( , (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“the species of intentional conduct necessary for recovery of tort damages in a bad faith case may fall short of what is required for a punitive damage award.
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“the species of intentional conduct necessary for recovery of tort damages in a bad faith ease may fall short of what is required for a punitive damage award.
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“The essence of th[e] duty [of good faith] is that neither party will act to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”).
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Rawlings v. Apodaca , , (“[I]n buying insurance an insured .
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
E.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, -91, ¶¶ 59-60 , , 28-29 (2002); -54 , -70 (1986); Enyart v. Transamerica Ins.
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Parking Concepts, Inc. v. Tenney 83 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2004
Parking Concepts, Inc. v. Tenney 83 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2004