Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Payne v. Payne, 471 P.2d 319.

53 citing documents.

Journey v. Bourgeois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Journey v. Bourgeois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 17 (App. 2007); (explaining that a party must timely present his legal theories before the superior court to give the superior court an opportunity to rule properly).
Duffy v. Pearson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Duffy v. Pearson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
b. CC&Rs #2, #3, #5, and #9 ¶21 “[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly.” (citation omitted).
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. S. Ariz. Int’l Livestock Ass’n, -45 (App. 1979)); ¶ 26 (App. 2017) (“[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give it an opportunity to rule properly.”) ().
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
7 10K LLC v. WVSV HOLDINGS, et al. Decision of the Court ¶19 It is the “general law in Arizona that a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly.” Ariz. R. Civ.
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly.” (citations omitted).
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2007) (“A party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly.”) ().
Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ltd. v. Evergreen Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2007) (holding “a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly”) ().
ades/celius v. Celius Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ades/celius v. Celius Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[A] party must timely present [his] legal theories to the trial court so as to give [it] an opportunity to rule properly.” Myrick, 235 Ariz. at 495, ¶ 11 ().
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ltd. v. Evergreen Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2007) (on a similar set of facts, holding “a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly”) ().
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
5 MYRICK v. MALONEY Opinion of the Court ¶11 “[T]he general law in Arizona [is] that a party must timely present h[er] legal theories to the trial court so as to give [it] an opportunity to rule properly.”
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(explaining a court must have the opportunity to rule on an issue).
AKSAMIT v. Krahn 227 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AKSAMIT v. Krahn 227 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, , (explaining a trial court must have an opportunity to rule on legal theories to preserve an issue for appeal).
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly.” Payne v. Payne, 12 Ariz. App. 434, 435
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
388, 389 , (signing judgment without waiting required five days for objections not reversible absent prejudice); , (attorney of record’s failure to sign affidavit of default “mere technical defect” requiring no relief absent prejudice).
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 952 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 952 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See, , (“[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly[;] ...
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Seven G Ranching Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust, , , aff'd, in part, vacated in part
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 714 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 714 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rich v. Tudor 599 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Rich v. Tudor 599 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Peery v. Hansen 585 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Peery v. Hansen 585 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
268 , , ” , (Emphasis in original) We are thus compelled to presume that the court had sufficient evidence before it to determine that resale price was equivalent to fair market value at the time of the breach of the sales agreement.
Wing v. Jimenez 560 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1976
Wing v. Jimenez 560 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1976
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baird's Bread Co. 499 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Sanner Contracting Co. 492 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by