Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mozes v. Daru, 420 P.2d 957.

61 citing documents.

Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
the practice of bringing substantially the same motion before different superior court judges in the hope of eventually finding one who will make a favorable ruling.”
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ime of statehood); Chartone, ¶ 30 , ( , which held that parties in malpractice action have right to have every issue tried by jury that has been empaneled); , (holding parties had right to have jury decide liability and damages on counterclaim in tort action).
Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
that ruling would have been 18 ¶30 In addition, “no purpose would be served by forcing a case to trial once it clearly appears that there is no genuine issue of fact between the parties notwithstanding [the fact that] a previous motion for summary judgment has been made and denied.”
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We criticize horizontal appeals because they waste judicial resources by asking two judges to consider identical motions and because they encourage “judge shopping.” Id.
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1990
City of Tucson v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1990
Shade v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 801 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Shade v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 801 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
the Shades’ final contention is that Judge Carruth erred in granting USF & G’s motion for summary judgment because Judge Hannah had previously denied its motion for directed verdict on the same facts.
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
It also contends the court’s judgment deprived it of its constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue of future damages, citing Ariz.Const., art. 2, § 23
Dunn v. Superior Court 772 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dunn v. Superior Court 772 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Cagle v. Carlson 705 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cagle v. Carlson 705 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
division two of this court discussed the practice of renewing a motion for summary judgment after such a motion had been denied.
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
427 , P.2d 957 (1966), and it is incumbent upon the appellant to point out wherein the trial court erred.
Union Construction Co. v. Beneficial Standard Mortgage Investors 610 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Union Construction Co. v. Beneficial Standard Mortgage Investors 610 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Nackard v. Wolfswinkel 569 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nackard v. Wolfswinkel 569 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
ARIZ. S. TAX COMM. v. Southwest Kenworth, Inc. 561 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
ARIZ. S. TAX COMM. v. Southwest Kenworth, Inc. 561 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md 551 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Feuchter A. v. Bazurto 528 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Feuchter A. v. Bazurto 528 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Young v. Peacock 509 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Young v. Peacock 509 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Plymouth Van Lines, Inc. v. Charlson 493 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Plymouth Van Lines, Inc. v. Charlson 493 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Wilson v. Savon Stations, Inc. 486 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wilson v. Savon Stations, Inc. 486 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
*445 , and Wiseman v. Young, 4 Ariz.App.
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
* * *” Subsequently, at 390 ; after setting forth a recitation from the judgment of the trial court, Division 2 of this Court said: “From these recitations it may be properly assumed that the trial court took judicial notice of the seven cases above re *76 ferred to.
Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co. 457 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by