Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson, 716 P.2d 28.

137 citing documents.

Thomas Kopp v. Physician Group of Az Ariz. 2018
Kopp v. Physicians Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kopp v. Physicians Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Law v. Verde Valley Med.
Grow v. Grow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Grow v. Grow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
South Point Energy Center, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 382 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
South Point Energy Center, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 382 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Norton v. Phonejockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶9 Here, Husband argues that the proper distribution of the life insurance proceeds was actually litigated, and should have been litigated, as an issue in the Rule 85 proceedings.
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Quihuis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 334 P.3d 719 Ariz. 2014
Quihuis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 334 P.3d 719 Ariz. 2014
Jamerson v. Quintero 313 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Jamerson v. Quintero 313 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(“In cases of derivative liability, a judgment or dismissal in favor of the servant relieves the master of liability.”); ¶ 13 , (“When a judgment on the merits — including a dismissal with prejudice — is en
Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 13 The Pieasos further argue, , that issue preclusion should not apply because, when a party pleads guilty to a crime, there is no actual litigation.
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Dressler v. Morrison 130 P.3d 978 Ariz. 2006
Dressler v. Morrison 130 P.3d 978 Ariz. 2006
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
¶25 In this regard, P.2d 28 (1986).
4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County 105 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County 105 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 9 , , 716 P.2d, 28, 30 (1986).
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
v. Adams, , , see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27.
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(finding no preclu-sive effect of prior stipulated judgment when intention to be bound was not apparent by the dismissal).
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
For example, , our supreme court stated, “[cjollateral estoppel or issue preclusion is applicable when the issue or fact to be litigated was actually litigated in a previous suit, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full opportunity to litigate t
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock 941 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1997