DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Englert v. Carondelet Health Network, 13 P.3d 763.

196 citing documents.

  • Harry W. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Harry W. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (we generally do not “consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal”).
  • Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Martinez v. Schneider Enters., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2000).
  • English, III v. Gantz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • English, III v. Gantz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Jp Morgan v. Adams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Isles v. College Nannies & Tutors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Isles v. College Nannies & Tutors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
  • Jp Morgan v. Adams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).
  • Cook v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Cook v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (finding that 3 The superior court found that Cook failed to attach any documentation regarding case number 17-L23-1182, and so his claims regarding this proceeding were “wholly unsupported.” On appeal and in his brief, Cook cites to a document he attaches in his appendix that he claims pr
  • Britton v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Britton v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    She also asserts she has “newly discovered evidence which would alter [the] outcome” of the case “if [it] went to trial.” ¶21 In general, this court will “not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hill v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Glendale v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, -27, ¶ 13 (App.2000) (noting that appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
  • Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (stating “we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal”).
  • Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 8 (App. 2018) (citations omitted); ¶ 18 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2000)).
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (explaining that generally the court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
  • Isgro v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Isgro v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Faulkner v. Laboratory Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Faulkner v. Laboratory Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 6 (App. 2000); Rule 37(c)(1).
  • Johnson v. Provoyeur 426 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Johnson v. Provoyeur 426 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (failure to raise an issue in the trial court generally constitutes waiver on appeal); Romero v. Sw.
  • State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).
  • Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“we generally do not consider issues .
  • Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal”).
  • Moon Valley v. Tegrous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moon Valley v. Tegrous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Reviewing the court’s decision to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 (App. 2000), we find no error.
  • Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 13, (recognizing that “we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal” (citation omitted)).
  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    (failure to raise issue in trial court constitutes waiver on appeal).
  • Varco, Inc. v. UNS Electric, Inc. 393 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Varco, Inc. v. UNS Electric, Inc. 393 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    Further, “[w]e review an order granting a new trial under a more liberal standard than an order denying one.” , quoting State Farm Fire & Cas.
  • Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 13, (recognizing that “we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal” (citation omitted)).