Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite REPUBLIC NAT. BANK OF NY v. Pima County, 25 P.3d 1.

42 citing documents.

Brown v. Olde Fashioned Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Brown v. Olde Fashioned Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Pima Cnty, ¶ 20 (App. 2001); (reversing dismissal of complaint on limitations grounds because “there is nothing on the face of the complaint that indicates” when cause of action accrued).
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Pima County, ¶ 20 (App. 2001) (noting that a court cannot dismiss a claim on limitations grounds at the pleading stage unless “it appears on the face of the complaint that the claim is barred”).
John R. France v. Arizona Counties Insurance Pool Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
John R. France v. Arizona Counties Insurance Pool Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Reece v. Chu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Reece v. Chu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Republic Nat’ ¶ 20 (App. 2001).
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
O'Neal v. Corporation Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Pima Cty., ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
Premium Leaf v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Premium Leaf v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Pima Cty., ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
Sarkilahti v. Bristol Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sarkilahti v. Bristol Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The existence of duty is a threshold issue that is usually decided by the trial court as a matter of law, subject to our de novo review.” Bloxham v. Glock, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (quoting Republic Nat’l ¶ 11 (App. 2001)).
Gallardo v. West Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gallardo v. West Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶8 “The affirmative defense of a statute of limitations may be raised in a motion to dismiss if it appears on the face of the complaint that the claim is barred.” Republic Nat’l ¶ 20 (App. 2001).
brown/mariscalv. Zoley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
brown/mariscalv. Zoley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Pima County, ¶ 21 (App. 2001) (A cause of action does not accrue under the discovery rule “until the plaintiff knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know the facts underlying the cause.” (emphasis added)).
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marsh v. Mayer 361 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Pima Cty., ¶ 19, (appellate court may affirm ruling on any issue raised below even if unaddressed by superior court).
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Pima County, –03, ¶ 12, –5 (App. 2001).
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See *944 ¶¶ 12-13 , ("Furthermore, this result [allowing a cause of action against a third party who damages trust property] is in keeping with the rule at common law that `an action may be maintained by a mortgagee against a third person who impairs his or her security by damaging the mortgaged p
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See *447 Republic Nat’l ¶¶ 12-13 , (“Furthermore, this result [allowing a cause of action against a third party who damages trust property] is in keeping with the rule at common law that ‘an action may be maintained by a mortgagee against a third person who impairs his or her security by damaging the mortgaged p
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(appellate court hesitant to affirm motion to dismiss on technical grounds not raised in motion and where insufficiency curable if timely raised below); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., (appellate court will only affirm summary judgme
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
v. Pima County, ¶ 2 , see also Logan v. Forever Living Prods.
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Brake Masters Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay 78 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“The existence of duty is a threshold issue that is usually decided by the trial court as a matter of law, subject to our de novo review.” Republic Nat’l
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
v. Pima County, ¶ 10 , (regarding interpretation of statutes generally).