Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Glaze v. Marcus, 729 P.2d 342.

139 citing documents.

Greenberg v. McGowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This court “will affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the trial court.”
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“We will affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the trial court.”).
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
LYNCH/AMERICANWEST Opinion of the Court by the trial court,”
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Riedel v. Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lynaugh v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lynaugh v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Zubia, 243 Ariz. at 415, ¶ 18 (explaining that the statute bars all objections to the trustee’s sale and that a claim is an objection if its success “would effectively result in a legal determination that the sale was defective”); ("We will affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the trial court.”).
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We also review de novo the trial court’s application of the law, id., and we will affirm if judgment is correct on any basis supported by the record, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) ().
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Local Bd., ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (“We will affirm the superior court if its ruling was ‘correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered’ by the court.”) ().
larue/tucker v. Brown 333 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
larue/tucker v. Brown 333 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
4 LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN Opinion of the Court Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-541(1) (West 2014)
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(noting that we will uphold a trial court’s decision if correct for any reason, even if the trial court did not consider that reason).
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that this court will uphold the trial court’s decision if correct for any reason).
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“We will affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the trial court.”).
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Local Bd„ , ("We will affirm the superior court if its ruling was ‘correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered’ by the *409 court.”)
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Local Bd., (“We will affirm the superior court if its ruling was „correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered‟ by the court.”)
State v. Eazy Bail Bonds 229 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Eazy Bail Bonds 229 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Tostado v. City of Lake Havasu 204 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Local Bd., ¶ 12 , ( , ).
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mutschler v. City of Phoenix 129 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mutschler v. City of Phoenix 129 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(noting that we affirm a trial court's grant of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason).
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Additionally, “[w]e will affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the trial court.”
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(we will affirm summary judgment “if it is correct for any reason,” if record and law support the result).
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 583 (1977); P.2d 342 (App. 1986).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by