Cited by

Having waived any challenge to service of process, Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011), Van Ho has not shown how the superior court was required to find that the “circumstances surrounding service” required relief under Rule 60(b)(6), cf. Hilgeman, 196 Ariz. at 221 ¶ 20 (noting any argument regarding service should be raised under Rule 60(b)(4), “a separate and mutually exclusive b

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

v. Espiau, -94, ¶ 25 (App. 2021) (stating that arguments not raised at the trial court are waived on appeal); Cont’l Lighting & Contracting Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (“[L]egal theories must be presented timely to the trial court so that the court may have an opportunity to address all issues on their merits.”).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived) (citing cases).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (Generally, “legal theories must be presented timely to the trial court so that the court may have an opportunity to address all issues on their merits.”).

Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (arguments not raised with the trial court are waived on appeal).

Indeed, it appears that Danko’s opening brief may have been copied from one of his other appeals where personal jurisdiction was Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (“Legal theories must be presented timely to the [superior] court.

v. Espiau, ¶ 25 (App. 2021) (“If the argument is not raised below so as to allow the trial court such an opportunity, it is waived on appeal.”) (quoting Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011)).

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (citation omitted); see Risner v. Alev, 2 CA-CV 2021-0122, 2022 WL 3025585, at *2, ¶ 8 (Ariz. App. Aug.

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining that a legal argument not raised in the superior court is waived on appeal).

See also Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (as corrected) (if a legal theory is “not raised below so as to allow the trial court” “an opportunity to address all issues on their merits,” it is waived on appeal).

(quoting Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011))).

See Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) ("If the argument is not raised below so as to allow the trial court .

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premiere Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining arguments not raised at the superior court are waived on appeal).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (stating that if an argument is not timely presented “to the [superior] court so that the court may have an opportunity to address all issues on their merits[,]” it is waived on appeal); see also State v. Banker’s Ins.

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (arguments not raised with the trial court are waived on appeal).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining that argument is waived on appeal if not presented to the superior court so it “may have an opportunity to address [the] issue[] on [its] merits.”).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (“If the argument is not raised below so as to allow the trial court [] an opportunity [to rule on it], it is waived on appeal.”).

See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining general rule that argument not timely raised in superior court is waived on appeal).

Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (arguments not raised with the superior court are waived on appeal).