DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, 258 P.3d 200.

126 citing documents.

  • Bmo v. Espiau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Bmo v. Espiau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶25 The Estate did not timely object to the fee award, and “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 & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
  • National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Util., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Best v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Best v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived, Cont’l v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Prince v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Prince v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, e.g., Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); ¶¶ 5-6 (App. 2010).
  • Lattimer v. Brisbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Lattimer v. Brisbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “The general law in Arizona is that 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).
  • State v. Ibeabuchi 461 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Ibeabuchi 461 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    P. 31.10(a)(7)(B); see Cont’l Lightning & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (providing that “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,” and if not, they are waived on appeal).
  • Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elc.
  • Dallabetta v. Deppen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Dallabetta v. Deppen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See, e.g., Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 4 DALLABETTA, et al. v. DEPPEN, et al. Decision of the Court (App. 2011); ¶¶ 5-6 (App. 2010); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (explaining that “legal theories 3 TRAP-ZAP v. FACILITYSOURCE Decision of the Court must be presented timely to the trial court so that the court may have an opportunity to address all issues on their merits”
  • Bowles v. Trznadel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Bowles v. Trznadel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Co., (“[A]n appellate court will not consider issues not raised in the trial court.”); Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (same).
  • City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the Estate 431 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the Estate 431 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See *208 Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc., v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC , , 386, ¶ 12, , 204 (App. 2011) (argument waived by failing to raise it below).
  • Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove 429 P.3d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove 429 P.3d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    The replacement doctrine “allows a senior lender that discharges its mortgage of record and records a replacement mortgage to keep its priority as against the holder of an intervening interest in the property.” Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 17 (App. 2011) (emphasis added).
  • Stringer v. Stringer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Stringer v. Stringer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
  • US Bank, N.A. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 398 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • US Bank, N.A. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 398 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2011).
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Edwards v. Lakewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Edwards v. Lakewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Jhamika B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
  • Jhamika B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See, e.g., Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Atr v. Cec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Atr v. Cec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Markham Contracting Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Co. 379 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Markham Contracting Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Co. 379 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    e; Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, -86, ¶¶ 9-11 , Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC, ¶ 12
  • Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2011); Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • Harris v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Harris v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Cont’l Lightning & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12, (providing that “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,” and if not, they are waived on appeal); Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, ¶ 15, (Ap
  • Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, , 386 ¶ 12, Schurgin v. Amfac Elec.
  • State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12, (providing that “legal theories must be presented timely to the trial court,” and if not, then they are waived on appeal); ¶ 4, (providing that appellate courts will not review issues not raised in the opening brief)
  • Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, ¶ 12, (providing that “legal theories must be presented timely to the trial court,” and if not, then they are waived on appeal); Louis C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, -- P.3d -- ¶ 5, 715 Ariz. Adv.