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.

  • Frazer v. Frazzano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Frazer v. Frazzano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    4 FRAZER et al. v. FRAZZANO Decision of the Court Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12
  • Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    replacement mortgage receives priority only “up to the amount paid to release the senior lien.” Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC, 231 5 HACI v. BMO, et al Decision of the Court Ariz. 457, 460, ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (citing Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Util., LLC, -89, ¶ 23 (App. 2011)).
  • Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Continental Lightning & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, 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, it is waived on appeal).
  • Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    In Arizona, “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.” Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, , 386 ¶ 12
  • Alicia H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Alicia H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., L.L.C., ¶ 12
  • The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
  • The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 9, Lamb Excavation, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg.
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, , 385 ¶ 9, Lamb Excavation, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg.
  • Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, , Lamb Excavation, , Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 2 Ariz.App.
  • Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC 296 P.3d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC 296 P.3d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 8
  • Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Fagerlie, 227 Ariz. at 376, ¶¶ 45-48 , 258 P.3d at 194 ; Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, , ¶ 28 n. 9, , 208 n. 9 (App.2011).
  • Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Semper Investments, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    a; see also Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, (Arizona courts generally follow Restatement in absence of controlling authority).
  • Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, ¶ 12 , (noting legal theories must be timely raised to the trial court to afford it an opportunity to address all issues); , 326 n. 2, , 659 n. 2 (App.1998) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles bu