DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robinson, 677 P.2d 1348.

18 citing documents.

  • AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • No Worries v. Marlin Mechanical Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Co. of Ariz., Inc., accord Larue, 235 Ariz. at 444 ¶¶ 16-17.
  • Christakis v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Co. of Ariz., Inc., Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
  • Fitzhugh v. Princeton Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Co., (two-year limitations period for wrongful interference with contract) (citing A.R.S.
  • Dube v. Likins Powell Hixon Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    The University Officials counter that, because the statements were not “published in a manner in which it is peculiarly likely to be concealed from the plaintiff, such as in a confidential memorandum or a credit report,” the cause of action accrued when the statements were published and the statute of limitations bars Dube’s defamation claims.
  • Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Co. of Ariz., Inc., , (explaining that actions for interference with contract are subject to the § 12-542 two-year limitation).
  • Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Co. of Ariz., Inc., , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Id.; , , 1349 (App. 1984).
  • Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc., , 242
  • State v. Terrell 753 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Terrell 753 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    2d 684 (1965) it is clear that the officer charged with executing a warrant must be advised with a reasonable degree of certainty of the property to be seized.” , , 1349 (App. 1984).
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
  • Smith v. Home Indemnity Co. 728 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    appellant contends that the descriptions of the items contained in the search warrant were mere generic descriptions forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.