Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission, 720 P.2d 81.

77 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dave Allen Laporte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Comm’n, see, e.g., Jordan, 132 Ariz. at 42-44; Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Ins.
Gebran v. Gebran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Gebran v. Gebran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fellers v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fellers v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Comm’n of Ariz., (“[T]he decision of a court in a case is the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested.”); see also Ariz. Sup.
State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State of Arizona (Barroso) v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Imh v. Beck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Garza v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Garza v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Dancing Sunshines Lounge, (“[T]he decision of a court in a case is the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which 1 Swift contends this argument is beyond our
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm'n, (noting that on remand "a memorandum decision constitutes the law of the case as does a full opinion").
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n of Ariz., –83 (1986) (Law of the case doctrine “should not be strictly applied when it would result in a manifestly unjust decision.”); (“We are of the opinion that a ruling on one appeal if manifestly or palpably erroneous is not to be treated as conclusive on subsequent appeal
Stauffer v. Premier Service Mortgage, LLC 382 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stauffer v. Premier Service Mortgage, LLC 382 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chasan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hardy v. Gottlieb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
22, 2010).5 The state, asserts “that the decision of a court in a case is the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested.”
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Comm’n, (“[T]he decision of a court in a case is the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested.”).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Comm’n, -83 , -84 (1986); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
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
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Comm’n, , (explaining “the decision of a court in a case is the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested”).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Comm’n of Ariz., , ¶ 8 , (“The doctrine of law of the *357 case is a rule of procedure rather than sub-stance____”).
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004