Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 , , 225 (App.2008) (purpose of limitations defense is to avoid defendants having to litigate stale claims).
Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 55 , , 218 ¶ 4, (“To soundly exercise its discretion, the court must also correctly apply the law.”).
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Galloway 230 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Galloway 230 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 16
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 27 , , (App.2008); Rand v. Porsche Fin.
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. Cochise County, , (recognizing longstanding rule that governing body not subject to statute of limitations in actions brought for public benefit unless so expressly stated or necessary by inference); see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 , (stating statute of limitations defenses are generally not favored as courts prefer to decide case on merits).
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
v. Bentley, see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (when 5 interpreting particular term, “‘we apply a practical and commonsensical construction’”)
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
When interpreting a particular term, “‘we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.’” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 , ¶ 9
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Vasquez, n. 6 , (we will not address waiver argument first raised on appeal); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , (we will not address issues or arguments waived by party’s failure to adequately develop them in their briefs); Romero v. Sw.
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , -26 (App.2008) (“[The] accrual of a cause of action occurs when the ‘plaintiff knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know the facts underlying the cause.’”), quoting Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., n.3, n.3 (App. 2008) (“Issues raised for the first time at oral argument are generally deemed untimely and waived.”).