Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Progressive Specialty Insurance v. Farmers Insurance, 694 P.2d 835.
-
Kimminau Law Firm, P.C. v. Melody Hoopes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Co. of Ariz., (appellate court should not “decide issues unless it is required to do so in order to dispose of the appeal under consideration”).
- Barrett v. Landmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Barrett v. Landmark
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co. of Ariz., (explaining appellate courts should not decide questions unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal).
- Chavez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Chavez v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co. of Ariz., (stating an appeals court should not "decide issues unless it is required to do so in order to dispose of the appeal under consideration").
- Smith v. Burnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Smith v. Burnett
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., (noting appellate courts should not decide questions unnecessary to disposition of appeal).
- Tp Racing v. Adog Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Tp Racing v. Adog
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., (Appellate courts generally should not decide questions unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal.).
- Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Truck v. Teixidor
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co. of Ariz., (noting that appellate courts should not give advisory opinions or decide issues other than those required to dispose of appeal under consideration); see also Allen v. Graham, 8 Ariz.App.
- Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Tms v. Zachariah
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co. of Ariz., (“It is not an appellate court’s function to declare principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.”).
- Gregory Real v. Keegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Gregory Real v. Keegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Love v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Love v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Rocco
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., (appellate courts should not give advisory opinions or decide questions not essential for resolution of the issues on appeal).
- Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state
451 P.3d 408
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co. of Ariz., (recognizing that appellate courts should not give advisory opinions or decide issues unnecessary to the disposition of an appeal).
- State v. Mixton 447 P.3d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
- Magnotta v. Serra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Magnotta v. Serra
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. of Ariz., ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
- Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Dlr v. O'Neil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Dlr v. O'Neil
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co. of Ariz., ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
- First v. Sunnyslope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
First v. Sunnyslope
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co. of Ariz., (An opinion is advisory only if it “declare[s] principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.”).
- Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections
363 P.3d 141
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. of Ariz., , (declining request to provide guidance on principles of law unnecessary in settling the rights of the litigants).
- Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. of Ariz., (explaining that appellate courts should not decide issues unless they are “required to do so in order to dispose of the appeal”).
- Origami v. Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Origami v. Connelly
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. of Ariz., (“It is not an appellate court’s function to declare principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.”).
- COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office
332 P.3d 94
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. of Ariz., (“It is not an appellate court’s function to declare principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.” (citation omitted)).
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Freeport McMoran Corporation v. Langley Eden Farms, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- Freeport McMoran Corporation v. Langley Eden Farms, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
-
In Re Martin M. and Rene N.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. of Ariz., (appellate court should not decide issues other than those required to dispose of appeal under consideration).
-
In Re Martin M.
221 P.3d 1058
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. of Ariz., , (appellate court should not decide issues other than those required to dispose of appeal under consideration).
- State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
-
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co. of Ariz., (appellate court should not give advisory opinions or decide issues other than those required to dispose of appeal under consideration).
- Stonecreek Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Shure 162 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Stonecreek Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Shure 162 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007