Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pulliam v. Pulliam, 678 P.2d 528.

29 citing documents.

GOVUVEIA v. GRULER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Smith v. Afc Gamma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Smith v. Afc Gamma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Courts look with favor upon stipulations designed to simplify and settle litigation.”); (observing counsel may stipulate to procedural, evidentiary matters such as the admission of evidence and the law favors stipulations “because they reduce the time of trial and narrow the issues”); cf. Gullett ex rel.
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“parties are bound by their stipulation unless relieved therefrom by the court”).
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[Parties] may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion or withdrawal of evidence from consideration.”).
Widner v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Widner v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Phoenix union/az School v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Phoenix union/az School v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“A party to an action cannot stipulate to one thing and then later change her mind and withdraw her consent.”).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 549; (“[C]ounsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion or withdrawal of evidence from consideration.”).
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aleman is "bound by [her] stipulation unless relieved therefrom by the court," and we will not consider her claim regarding the Sergeant's testimony about masking agents.
Midland v. Amelga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Midland v. Amelga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-46 (App. 1984) (observing “counsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission .
Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
fications or the foundation for his opinions during testimony waived those legal objections); (Defendant who stipulated to foundation for admission of murder weapon could not later complain of insufficient foundation.), aff'd, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002); -45, -30 (App. 1984) (parties were bound by stipulation that a child counselor would not be called as a witness).
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(parties are bound by their stipulation unless relieved therefrom by the court).
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Co., , , , Harsh Building Co. v. Bialac, 22 Ariz.App.
Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Harsh Building Company v. Bialac, supra.