Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kalil Bottling Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 619 P.2d 1055.

27 citing documents.

Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co. of Am., , (“It is the general rule that a party has no light to appeal from a judgment in its favor since it cannot be an aggrieved party.”); , (“[Plaintiff] is not entitled to cross-appeal from a judgment wholly in its favor on any ground since it is not an aggrieved party.”).
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 169 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 169 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , (prevailing party may "seek to uphold a judgment in its favor for reasons supported in the record, but different from those relied on by the trial court by designating ‘cross-issues' ” in its brief ( , )); see also Ness v. W. Sec.
Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp. 126 P.3d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Chaurasia v. General Motors Corp. 126 P.3d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Chaurasia’s only authority, , involves a dispute under the UCC concerning a contract that the warrantor was held to have breached by not repairing the problem within a reasonable time.
Hallmark Industries, L.L.C. v. First Systech International, Inc. 52 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Hallmark Industries, L.L.C. v. First Systech International, Inc. 52 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(terms and conditions on reverse side of parties’ contract applied regardless of how contract was characterized).
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Bryce v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 783 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bryce v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 783 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
The prevailing party, however, can seek to uphold a judgment in its favor for reasons supported in the record, but different from those relied on by the trial court, by designating “cross-issues” in its “Issues Presented.”
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Formento v. Encanto Business Park 744 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See also Gillespie Land & , , , , and Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App.
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In support of this contention
Bazurto v. Burgess 666 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Bazurto v. Burgess 666 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Kolberg v. McKean’s Model Laundry & Dry Clean.
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982