Cited by

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

196 citing documents.

Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13 (App. 2000) (citation omitted).
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Holdings, L.L.C., ¶ 89, (reviewing a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion); ¶ 5, (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial based on the court’s finding that it should have precluded an affirmative defense not disclosed before trial).
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 Although, as a general rule, we do not consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal, ¶ 13, we may address those issues that do not “turn on resolution of disputed facts,” are “of statewide importance .
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(noting absence of Arizona cases holding trial court had abused discretion by ordering new trial on all issues).
Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stephens v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Madison v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2000)).
Foor v. Hon. smith/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Foor v. Hon. smith/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The appellate record does not reflect that Foor filed a motion to suppress in this matter or that she otherwise raised any Fourth Amendment issue before the municipal court.3 By failing to raise such a claim in the municipal court, Foor waived the issue and we do not address it.4 ¶ 13, (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 13, (appellate court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Partial new trials are not recommended because they create much opportunity for confusion and injustice.” (citations omitted)); ¶ 15, (“Any doubt should be resolved in favor of a trial on all the issues.” (citations omitted)).
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, (appellate court does not consider issues raised for first time on appeal).
Iknadosian v. Mahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Iknadosian v. Mahon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Harris, 215 Ariz. at 349-50, ¶¶ 17-23, 160 P.3d at 228-29; ¶ 13, –69 (App. 2000).
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, (appellate court generally does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-27, ¶ 13, -69 (App. 2000) (issues not raised below are not generally considered on appeal).
Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
complied with the applicable standard of care”); (affirming grant of new trial on basis of failure to disclose affirmative defense).
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(appellate court does not consider issues raised for first time on appeal).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 13 , (explaining appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(characterizing motion in limine ruling as pretrial, interlocutory order).
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo 278 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the Commitment of Wilfredo Jaramillo 278 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”).