Cited by

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

196 citing documents.

Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See, ¶ 5 , see also Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Expo.
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
As both Mullen and Gir-ouard hold, “the issues of liability and damages in a wrongful death action are generally distinct because recoverable damages are not based on the negligent act but, rather, on the survivors’ injuries ‘resulting from the [decedent’s] death.’ ” ¶ 16 , (quoting AR.S.
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Center v. SCF Arizona 239 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Center v. SCF Arizona 239 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 13 , (citation omitted).
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶¶ 6-7 , (requiring disclosure of a fair description and the substance of facts and opinions of testimony, but not a “detailed scripting.”).
In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Appellant failed to raise his argument in the superior court, however, “and we generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 13 , (citation omitted).
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh 2008-002393 221 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 13 , (“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citation omitted).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 13 , (holding that appellate courts "generally do not consider issues ...
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 7 , (finding that a comparative fault defense not raised in either the disclosure statements or the joint pretrial statement should have been precluded).
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 13 , (even constitutional issues not raised in the trial court are not considered on appeal).
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-27, ¶ 13 , -69 (App.2000) (We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal unless they are issues of statewide importance or rise to the level of fundamental error.).
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
(court of appeals generally does not address issues raised for first time on appeal).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
(“Rule 15.1(a)(1) requires the state to disclose the names of all [non-expert] witnesses together with their relevant written or recorded statements,” but does “not require the state to explain how it ‘intends’ to use each of its witnesses.”); Englert v. Carondelet Health - 16 - Network, ¶¶ 6-7, (Rule 26.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to disclose “a ‘fair description’ of each witness’s expected testimony, and ‘the substance of the facts and opinions’ of each expert’s
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“[W]e generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, raised for the first time on appeal.” see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Therefore, we deem it unnecessary to decide the discovery issues presented on appeal.’ ” , quoting Vincelette v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Styles (extent of effect of errors in one portion of trial proper consideration for whether new trial on liability and damages is necessary on remand); , (Espinosa, C.J., dissenting) (finding retrial only on damages sufficient in wrongful death action); , (ordering retrial on damages only in wrongful death action); Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. State ex rel.
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Styles (extent of effect of errors in one portion of trial proper consideration for whether new trial on liability and damages is necessary on remand); P.3d 763 (App. 2000) (Espinosa, C.J., dissenting) (finding retrial only on damages sufficient in wrongful death action); P.2d 1377 (App. 1987) (ordering retrial on damages only in wrongful death action); Phoenix Title
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶¶ 24-25 , (declining to consider discovery issues because trial court would have adequate time to set new deadlines on remand); ¶ 43 , (finding that a trial continuance allowed “adequate notice and time to prepare”).
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Van Lines, Inc., , ¶ 14 , (reasoning it would “affirm the trial court’s decision if it did not ‘exceed[ ] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.’ ” ( , )).
Retter v. Retter 42 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Retter v. Retter 42 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See Englert v. Carondelet Health Net *176 work, ¶ 13