Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock 941 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Adams 931 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Adams 931 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
ateral 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 the matter and actually did litigate it, provided such issue or fact was essential to the prior judgment.” , Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Powers 908 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Powers 908 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
IRBY Construction Co v. Arizona Department of Revenue 907 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
IRBY Construction Co v. Arizona Department of Revenue 907 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Schallock 914 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Schallock 914 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27, comment d. The Lansfords raised the issue of Harris’s competence in the fee lawsuit when they affirmatively alleged in their answer that Harris “was hired to render legal services in a competent and diligent manner, and Defendants affirmatively al
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-74 , -31 (1986) (because city’s liability is not wholly derivative, dismissal of architect does not require dismissal of suit).
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1990
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1990
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Kordsiemon v. Christianson 735 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Kordsiemon v. Christianson 735 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
citing Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 , 75 S.Ct.