Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc., 629 P.2d 553.

66 citing documents.

Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 19-142(C), rejecting the signatures based on a failure to provide the City Clerk a copy of that same Ordinance “would be the essence of a futile act, which the law does not require.” See Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, Inc., (“The law does not require a futile act.”).
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
4 QUIJADA v. QUIJADA Opinion of the Court the court’s express findings.’”) (quoting Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., ).
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, Inc.
Massey v. 1st Hc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Massey v. 1st Hc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., (“The law does not require a futile act.”) (citing Kammert Bros. Enters.
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2001), and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., ).
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Code § 6-309(D) (authorizing a variance only where special circumstances exist); Austin Shea, 213 Ariz. at 393, ¶ 33 (citing Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., ).
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
] we must accept the one chosen by the trial court.”) ( , ); , (noting the reviewing court accepts reasonable inferences to be drawn from the jury’s answer to an interrogatory “as representing the true facts of the case”); see also Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , (noting all findings necessary to sustain a judgment are implied therein so long as they are “reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the express findings”) ( , ).
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
9 Although not expressly contained in the record, we presume the trial court made all findings necessary to sustain the judgment if they are “reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the [court’s] express findings.” Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc.
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 , (noting we will infer findings necessary to affirm the trial court as long as there is no conflict with any express findings) ( ¶8 , and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , ).
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
rea is a walkway, and I’ve already indicated that.”  “[A]s you know, I’ve already found that the area adjacent to the track was a walkway and that the standards, at least as to that, that the standards are applicable.” 11 WINCKLER v. BNSF Decision of the Court Dep’t Store, Inc., (“The law does not require a futile act.”).
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc.
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Cf. Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dep’t. Store, Inc., , (implied in every judgment are findings necessary to sustain it if reasonably supported by the evidence and not in conflict with express findings).
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Moreover, “[i]mplied in every judgment, in addition to express findings made by the court, is any additional finding that is necessary to sustain the judgment, if reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the express findings.” Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc.
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 990 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 990 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Corp., *510 , , Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , Yeazell, 98 Ariz. at 115-16 , 402 P.2d at 545-46 .
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Corp., *1148 , 164, , 1029 (App. 1992); , Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., , Yeazell, 98 Ariz. at 115-16 , 402 P.2d at 545-46 .
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
see also Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, , (implied in every judgment are findings and conclusions necessary to sustain judgment).
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, , (implied in every judgment are the findings and conclusions necessary to sustain it).
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, , Ruck Construction Co.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Construction of California, Inc. 804 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, e.g., Coronado Co. Inc. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , Lawrence v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Lee Development Co. v. Papp 803 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Lee Development Co. v. Papp 803 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Department Store, Inc.
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome’s Dept. Store, Inc., , In re McDonald’s Estate, 4 Ariz.App.