Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Robson Ranch Mountains, L.L. C. v. Pinal County, 51 P.3d 342.

32 citing documents.

Hirschi v. Hirschi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Hirschi v. Hirschi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 9 (App. 2018); see also Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13 (App. 2002) (reviewing rulings de novo because they “hinge on mixed questions of law and fact and pure questions of law”).
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(citing Robson Ranch Mtns., ¶ 38 (App. 2002) (“A referendum applicant’s receipt of or reliance on inaccurate advice from a county elections director does not extend the time period for filing the petition or otherwise excuse noncompliance with the statutory requirements.”) and Perini Land and Dev.
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
See Robson Ranch Mountains, (identifying conflict).
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sheriff's Office , , 227, ¶ 7, , 205 (App. 2007), but review pure questions of law-including statutory interpretation-de *495 novo, Robson Ranch Mountains, LLC v. Pinal County , , 125, ¶ 13, , 347 (App. 2002).
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, see Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., but, as discussed later, we review de novo pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, see Robson Ranch Mountains
City of Sierra Vista v. Sierra Vista Wards System Voting Project Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
City of Sierra Vista v. Sierra Vista Wards System Voting Project Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
We also review de novo “‘questions of law, including matters of statutory interpretation.’” Robson Ranch Mountains, quoting In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13 , (citing Bills v. Ariz. Prop.
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Robson Ranch Mtns., (“A referendum applicant’s receipt of or reliance on inaccurate advice from a county elections director does not extend the time period for filing the petition or otherwise excuse noncompliance with the statutory requirements.”); accord Perini Land and Dev.
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
QUEIROZ v. Harvey 204 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶25 As with statutes, court rules “‘should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.’” Hansen, 160 P.3d at 168, quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., see also Robson Ranch Mountains, (courts seek to harmonize and attain consistency among related statutory provisions in context of overall statutory scheme).
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(issues regarding interpretation of court rules reviewed de novo); Robson Ranch Mountains, , (issues regarding statutory interpretation and constitutional issues reviewed de novo).
Eurofresh, Inc. v. Graham County 187 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Eurofresh, Inc. v. Graham County 187 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13
In Re the Estate of ELLIOT GOLDMAN 158 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Re the Estate of ELLIOT GOLDMAN 158 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cf. Robson Ranch Mountains, (“We .
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, e.g., Robson Ranch Mountains, ¶ 13 , (applying de novo standard of review to trial court’s denial of declaratory and injunctive relief that sought to prohibit referendum pertaining to rezoning ordinances from being placed on general election ballot, because the trial court’s rulings hinged on mixed questions of la