Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Vega v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 645.

73 citing documents.

Maywald v. Toyota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Compare Vineyard, –05 (assuming Arizona rejected risk/benefit analysis as set forth in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., (Cal.
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Apodaca, Sr. v. Keeling 439 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–08 ¶¶ 10–12 (App. 2001) (discussing Rule 7(f) of the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration, the early progenitor of Rule 77(h)).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2001)).
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (App. 2012) (noting the interpretation of court rules requires de novo review) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2008), ¶ 8 (App. 2001)).
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sheets v. Hon. mead/reynolds 356 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sheets v. Hon. mead/reynolds 356 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (“Our primary objective is to discern and give 1 Sheets also timely appealed the court’s order.
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16 , (“[T]he bar on trial de novo is similarly raised for whichever party, plaintiff or defendant, appeals from the arbitration award.”).
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Abel Cuellar v. Megan G. Vettorel 332 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If the language is inconclusive or ambiguous, “we then consider other factors such as [the rule or statute’s] context, subject matter, effects, consequences, spirit and purpose.” ¶ 8
Bradshaw v. Jasso-Barajas 291 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bradshaw v. Jasso-Barajas 291 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Aqua Mgmt., 224 Ariz. at 94-95, ¶ 13 , 227 P.3d at 501-02 ; ¶ 12 , (examining Uniform Rule 7(f), which was the precursor to Rule 77(f)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 2B Ariz. Prac., Civil Rules Handbook R 77 (2012 ed.).
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at ¶ 29; ¶ 11 , (concluding that “judgment,” in the context of then Uniform Rule 7(f), 7 included the entire final judgment because “[n]either Uniform Rule 7(f) nor any other provision in the Uniform Rules permits a portion of the judgment to be ignored for purposes of comparison to the arbitr
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Aqua Management, Inc. v. Abdeen 227 P.3d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Aqua Management, Inc. v. Abdeen 227 P.3d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“We review the trial court’s judgment, based on its ‘interpretation of the meaning and effect of a court rule,’ de novo.” ¶ 8 , ( , ).
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
our supreme court in promulgating [the rule].’ ” Bergeron, , 74 P.3d at 958 , , (alteration and omission in Bergeron).
Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Perez v. O’Neil, ¶ 16 , ¶8
Allstate Indemnity Company v. Lisa Ridgely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Allstate Indemnity Company v. Lisa Ridgely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
We review de novo the propriety of summary judgment, Link, 972 P.2d at 673, and questions involving the interpretation of court rules
Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by