DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219.

173 citing documents.

  • Runyard v. Runyard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Runyard v. Runyard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (appellate court generally will not consider arguments that were not presented to the trial court); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88 (App. 2008) (appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by a party’s failure to develop them adequately).
  • United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2008) (citations omitted).
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008).
  • ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5
  • McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2008).
  • Jensen v. Beirne 386 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jensen v. Beirne 386 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 , (stating we review de novo questions of law regarding statute of limitations and the superior court’s statutory interpretation); , (stating whether a particular statute of limitations applies to any given a
  • MacGruder v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • MacGruder v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 40- 334.B; see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 9 (holding that we do not look beyond the statutory language when it is not ambiguous).
  • Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    But unlike a derivative suit brought under § 10-741, there is no requirement that a director of a nonprofit corporation “[f]airly and adequately represent[] the interests” of the corporation, see § 10-11430, by maintaining his or her status throughout the action, see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (“We presume that if the legislature had meant for a .
  • London v. Karatz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • London v. Karatz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 27
  • Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 379 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 379 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , 183 ¶ 33, (“We avoid an interpretation that makes ‘any language superfluous or redundant.’ ”).
  • Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    “When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain language because that is ‘the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., quoting N. Valley Emergency Specialists
  • Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Estate of Butwin v. Estate of Butwin 371 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We will not construe statutes “in a way that produces absurd results,” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 47 (App. 2008), but this is not an absurd result.
  • State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008).
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , (appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by failure to adequately develop them in briefs).
  • Melissa W. v. Department of Child Safety 357 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Melissa W. v. Department of Child Safety 357 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    App. P., applicable to juvenile appeals); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by party’s failure to develop them adequately).
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    “To constitute an abuse of discretion, the [trial] court’s decision must be either premised on an application of the law that is erroneous, or on an assessment of the evidence that is clearly erroneous.” Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2000); see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “We defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel 5 SCHICKNER v. SCHICKNER Opinion of the Court Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58
  • Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See ARCAP 13(a)(6) (requiring that, for each contention, “the proper standard of review on appeal shall be identified, with citations to relevant authority”); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88, (concluding that a party’s failure to adequately develop its argument resulted in waiver).
  • Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 11, City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5
  • State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
  • Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
  • Gries v. Plaza Del Rio Management Corp. 335 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gries v. Plaza Del Rio Management Corp. 335 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5
  • Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ppel are present, it will apply against the government 'when the public interest will not be unduly damaged and when its application will not substantially and adversely affect the exercise of governmental powers.'" City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, 15 ¶ 67, (quoting Valencia, 191 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 40, 959 P.2d at 1269).
  • Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., n.10, ¶ 80, n.10 (App. 2008) (recognizing that issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
  • John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.