DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., 640 P.2d 198.

32 citing documents.

  • Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶24 LeMad’s reliance on Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., –71, –02 (App. 1981), is misplaced.
  • Iknadosian v. Mahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Iknadosian v. Mahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., (noting that the power to affirm a summary judgment on grounds not considered by the trial court “must be exercised with extreme caution”).
  • Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Co., ¶ 25 , we are reluctant to rule on grounds that the trial court did not address, cf. Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., , (noting that the power to affirm a summary judgment on grounds not considered by the trial court “must be exercised with extreme caution”).
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    & Consumers Coop., , (“We do not believe it proper for an appellate court to affirm a dismissal on grounds pertaining to the technical sufficiency of the pleadings when such grounds had not been argued in the trial court and the insufficiency may have been cured if the problem had been properly and timely raised.”); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., , (noting that the power to affirm a summary judgment on grounds not considered by the trial court “must be exercised with extreme caution”).
  • Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 , (stating that the failure to raise an issue in trial court waives the argument on appeal); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., , (reiterating the rule that an appellate court will not reverse summary judgment on grounds first advanced on appeal).
  • Edwards v. Board of Supervisors 229 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Edwards v. Board of Supervisors 229 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc.
  • James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    may deprive the non-moving party of the opportunity to present facts which are relevant to the new issues, but which were not relevant to the issues raised below.” Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc.
  • Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (appellate court hesitant to affirm motion to dismiss on technical grounds not raised in motion and where insufficiency curable if timely raised below); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., (appellate court will only affirm summary judgment on grounds not raised below in limited circumstances).
  • Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    Cf. Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc. , , (affirming summary judgment on new grounds “may deprive the non-moving party of the opportunity to present facts which are relevant to the new issues, but which were not relevant to the issues raised below”).
  • REPUBLIC NAT. BANK OF NY v. Pima County 25 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • REPUBLIC NAT. BANK OF NY v. Pima County 25 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    an appellate court to affirm a dismissal on grounds pertaining to the technical sufficiency of the pleadings when such grounds had not been argued in the trial court and the insufficiency may have been cured if the problem had been properly and timely raised.” Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., , cf. Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., , (court of appeals hesitant to affirm summary judgment based on new issues).
  • Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc.
  • Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. 780 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    517 n. 1, , 540 n. 1 (App.1983); Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc.
  • Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., , Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
  • Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    See Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc.
  • Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 700 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    In Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., , (Rhoads II), we reversed the trial court’s summary judgment entered against the plaintiffs.
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    See Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc., , see also, Herm v. Stafford, 663 F.2d 669 (6th Cir.1981); Sellers v. Regents of the University of California, 432 F.2d 493 (9th Cir.1970), cert.