Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc., 146 P.3d 1027.

38 citing documents.

Giersz v. Walmart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Giersz v. Walmart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Examples of persons in privity include employers and employees, principals and agents, and indemnitors and indemnitees.” Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., ¶ 40 (App. 2006).
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
Co., 148 Ariz. at 573; Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2006); Restatement § 27.
Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Best v. Ceja Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
Savage v. Crippa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Savage v. Crippa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 42 (App. 2006).
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., 213 Am 618, 629 ¶ 35, (providing that in interpreting a statute, “we give meaning to each word or phrase ...
Grow v. Grow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Grow v. Grow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
Earle Investments, LLC v. Southern Desert Medical Center Partners 394 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Earle Investments, LLC v. Southern Desert Medical Center Partners 394 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Corbett v. Manorcare of Am., Inc., -22, ¶ 2 (App. 2006).
Arizona v. Studio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arizona v. Studio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., -22, ¶ 2 (App. 2006).
Gnatkiv v. Machkur 372 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gnatkiv v. Machkur 372 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., , 624 ¶ 13, (providing that under res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by [the same] parties or their privies based on the same cause of action”).
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., ¶ 22
Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., ¶ 10
nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
nur/ibrahim v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Corbett v. Manorcare of Amer., Inc., -22, ¶ 2, -31 (App. 2006).
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Quoting Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., he argued the first ruling “‘bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.’” Acknowledging the “fluidity” of a child’s best interest, Bennigno maintained res judicata nevertheless bars ADES from re-litigating the issue to the extent the cl
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 36
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Corbett v. Manor-Care of Am., Inc., ¶ 10
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., -31 (App. 2006).
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., , -31 (App. 2006).
In Re Estate of Wyttenbach 193 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Wyttenbach 193 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“We will affirm a summary judgment only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Corbett v. ManorCare of Am., Inc., ¶ 2
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
13 ¶21 Furthermore, even if the tribal court’s statute of limitations ruling was not binding on the superior court, see Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., it is clear the Community cannot be joined as a party in superior court due to its sovereign immunity.