DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n, 514 P.2d 503.

38 citing documents.

  • GALLERY v. K HOVNANIAN Ariz. 2026
    Chief Justice Timmer, joined by Justice King, Dissenting ¶55 When the Legislature enacted the HADA, HOAs had viable theories to pursue construction defect claims: negligence for damage to HOA-owned property, see Woodward, 141 Ariz. at 515–16 (recognizing builder’s common law duty of care in construction of residential property); Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, (involving HOA-brought negligence claim against developer for construction defects in common areas); breach of c
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    v. London, Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, –53 (1973).
  • Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
  • Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
    Chamberlain, 151 Ariz. at 554 (confirming that “[d]efendant properly raised the immunity defense in his motion to dismiss because its factual framework was established in plaintiffs’ complaint”); Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, (“Affirmative defenses, such as privilege, may be raised and determined on a motion to dismiss where the facts constituting the defense appear .
  • Ledvina v. Cerasani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Ledvina v. Cerasani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, (absolute privilege for defamatory statements in judicial pleadings not “intended to affect the validity of any claim for relief based on malicious prosecution or abuse of process”).
  • Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n
  • Owens v. City of Phoenix 884 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Owens v. City of Phoenix 884 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n
  • Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
  • Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
    However, we have previously held that the defense of immunity “may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss, if the facts establishing the occasion for the privilege 1 appear in the pleadings.” , (footnote added); see also Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, , 2A J. MOORE, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 8.28, at 8-209 (1986) (“The affirmative defense raised by a motion to dismiss may be handled entirely under Rule 12(b)(6) ...
  • Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc. 739 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Sierra Madre Development, , or in a motion for summary judgment.
  • Franzi v. Koedyker 758 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Franzi v. Koedyker 758 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    See Sierra Madre Development
  • State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
    See also B & P Concrete, , Sierra Madre Dev., Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n, , State v. Vondohlen, 24 Ariz.App.
  • Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1984
  • Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1984
    Whether the privilege exists is a question of law for the court, Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 619, and may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss, if the facts establishing the occasion for the privilege appear in the pleadings, Sierra Madre Development, , or in a motion for summary judgment.
  • Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE FOR PLEADINGS Arizona courts have recognized that the absolute “judicial” privilege based on the common law and Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 586 and 587 3 extends to defamatory statements contained in the pleadings themselves, Sierra Madre Development, , in a lis pendens filed to give notice of underlying litigation, Stewart v. Fahey, 14 Ariz.App.
  • Bailey v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 636 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Bailey v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 636 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    Sierra Madre Development
  • Drummond v. Stahl 618 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Drummond v. Stahl 618 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Sierra Madre Development
  • Schlicht v. Curtin 570 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Schlicht v. Curtin 570 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Hollar v. Wright 566 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Hollar v. Wright 566 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Cf. Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. Via Entrada Townhouses Ass’n
  • Crook v. Anderson 565 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • B & P CPNCRETE, INC. v. Turnbow 561 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • B & P CPNCRETE, INC. v. Turnbow 561 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Sierra Madre Development, , was decided by Division Two of the Court of Appeals after the 1973 amendment to A.R.S.
  • Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    191 , Sierra Madre Development
  • Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975