Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Romo v. Reyes, 548 P.2d 1186.

37 citing documents.

Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Consistent with this rule, our court concluded that waiver of a statute-of-limitations defense is effective only “if not asserted prior to judgment.”
JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Nicdon v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Nicdon v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Generally, leave to amend should be “liberally allowed in the interest of justice.” see Ariz. R. Civ.
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Twin City v. Leija Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
"[P]rejudice is 'the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.'" Spitz v. Bache & Co., Inc., ().
Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Olariu v. Gibbons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., P.2d 1127 (1982) P.2d 1186 (1976) for the proposition that the statue of limitations defense is waived only if not raised prior to the entry of a final, appealable judgment.
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
P. 15(a) (“Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires.”); , (“An answer may be amended at any time before trial.”).
Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Linch v. THOMAS-DAVIS MED. CENTERS PC 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Linch v. Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Linch v. Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. 925 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. v. Songer 827 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. v. Songer 827 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Rule 7(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc. 800 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc., , -10 , -48 (App.1978); -76
Moore v. Toshiba International Corp. 772 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Transamerica Insurance v. Trout 701 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Transamerica Insurance v. Trout 701 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 609 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc. 596 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1979
Spitz v. Bache & Company, Inc. 596 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1979
It has been said that prejudice is “the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties into the litigation.”
Trujillo v. Brasfield 579 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Trujillo v. Brasfield 579 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
cited by the petitioners, which effectively destroys their argument.