Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson, 716 P.2d 28.
- Nguyen v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Garcia v. Vallon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Garcia v. Vallon
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“When an issue is properly raised by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined, the issue is actually litigated.”).
- Leatham v. Yearick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Leatham v. Yearick
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(stating that for issue preclusion to apply, issue must be “actually litigated .
- Barrett v. Landmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Barrett v. Landmark
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“When an issue is properly raised by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined, the issue is actually litigated.”) (citation omitted).
- Krivulka v. Lerner/krivulka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Krivulka v. Lerner/krivulka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
- Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
- Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
- Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
- Schneider v. Schneider Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Schneider v. Schneider
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(explaining issue preclusion).
- Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Abc v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Abc v. Maricopa
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“When an issue is properly raised by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined, the issue is actually litigated.”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt.
- Banner Medical v. Hon. gordon/jeremy Harris Et Ux Ariz. 2022
-
Banner Medical v. Hon. gordon/jeremy Harris Et Ux
Ariz. 2022
and discussing rule that for issue preclusion to apply the issue must be actually litigated and a final judgment entered); In re Gen.
- Revive v. Shea-Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Revive v. Shea-Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Laurence v. Srp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Laurence v. Srp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(stating that “a judgment or dismissal in favor of the servant relieves the master of liability”); Law v. Verde Valley Med.
- Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Olesen v. daniel/burge 484 P.3d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Olesen v. daniel/burge
484 P.3d 139
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 22 (App. 2018) (A superior court judge cannot review or change a final judgment regarding a protective order once the judgment has become final.)
- Best v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Best v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Schirmer v. Avalon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Schirmer v. Avalon
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“In cases of derivative liability, a judgment or dismissal in favor of the servant relieves the master of liability.”).
- Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
- Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
- Wilson v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Wilson v. Wilson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(explaining a party is precluded from relitigating a fact essential to a prior judgment if the fact “was actually litigated in a previous suit, a final judgment was entered, and the party .
- Cenite v. Carter Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Cenite v. Carter Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Kopp v. Physician Grp. of Ariz., Inc. 421 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2018
- Thomas Kopp v. Physician Group of Az Ariz. 2018
- Kopp v. Physician Grp. of Ariz., Inc. 421 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2018