Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima, 656 P.2d 1251.

30 citing documents.

Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ctr., see also Ziegler v. Superior Court (DeVito)
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate decision is binding on the points presented in all subsequent proceedings in both trial and appellate courts if “the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested.” (citation omitted).
Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct., Copper Hills Enters., - 91, ¶ 15 (App. 2007).
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of the case” is context-dependent, as applicable here, the doctrine provides “that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested.”
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 “The term ‘law of the case’ is a rule that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the ease in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested.”
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II , , (law of the case doctrine permits trial court to “refus[e] to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court”); Ziegler v. Superior Court , , (“[T]he decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case .
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Because an appeal could not rectify any damage that may result from the compelled disclosure of the patients' records, , , and because we find the respondent judge abused his discretion in compelling the production of the mental health records, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
HOSPITAL CORP. OF AMER. v. Superior Ct. 755 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
HOSPITAL CORP. OF AMER. v. Superior Ct. 755 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Curtis v. Tromble 747 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Curtis v. Tromble 747 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986