Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos, 326 P.3d 279.
- TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See John Munic Enters., ¶¶ 3, 5, 6 (App. 2014) (denial of a motion under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(5) that seeks relief from a judgment that has been “satisfied, released, or discharged” is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
- Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Dyrek v. Dyrek
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See John Munic Enters., ¶ 10 (App. 2014); Haisch v. Allstate Ins.
- Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Lucky Horse v. Yarbrough
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See John Munic Enters., ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (fraudulent inducement); Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., (consumer fraud); Haisch v. Allstate Ins.
- Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
-
Contreras v. Bourke
Ariz. 2025
John Munic Enters., ¶ 4 (App. 2014).
- Wholesale v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Wholesale v. Montoya
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
App. P. 11(a); John Munic Enters., ¶ 25, n.5 (App. 2014) (“If a fact is not in the record, we may not consider it.”).
- Saia v. nineveh/bronson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Saia v. nineveh/bronson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., (negligent misrepresentation); John Munic Enters., ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (fraudulent inducement).
- Chatha v. Marwah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Chatha v. Marwah
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
John Munic Enters., ¶ 10 (App. 2014).
- Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
-
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras
556 P.3d 291
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
See John Munic Enters., (judicial bias argument waived by failure to request disqualification under A.R.S.
- Driggers v. Driggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Driggers v. Driggers
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
But “[a]rguments unsupported by any authority will not be considered on appeal.” John Munic Enters., ¶ 30 (App. 2014) (quoting Ness v. W. Sec.
- Michael D., Turquoise P. v. Dcs, N.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Michael D., Turquoise P. v. Dcs, N.P.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See John Munic Entrs., ¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2014) (“If a fact is not in the record, we may not consider it.”).
- Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Agricann v. Natural Remedy
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Accordingly, one of the principal goals of remedying a breach of contract is to “[e]nforc[e] the expectation interests of the parties.” John Munic Enterprises, ¶ 18 (App. 2014).
- Wood Expressions v. Aaa alarm/asi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Wood Expressions v. Aaa alarm/asi
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
John Munic Enters., ¶ 14 (App. 2014); Norwest Bank (Minn.), N.A.
- David A. v. Anayza M., D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
David A. v. Anayza M., D.A.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Laos, ¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2014) (this court may not consider facts outside the record).
- Concetta Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Living LLC 492 P.3d 1031 Ariz. 2021
-
Concetta Rizzio v. Surpass Senior Living LLC
492 P.3d 1031
Ariz. 2021
John Munic Enters., ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (rejecting application of the rule in “ordinary contract cases”).
- Stein v. Meck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Stein v. Meck
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Laos, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we look no further and assum[e] the legislature has said what it means.”) (internal quotation omitted).
- State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. McCcd
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See John Munic Enters., ¶ 5 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2013)).
-
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board
395 P.3d 714
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See John Munic Enters., ¶ 5 , ( ¶ 9 , ).
- Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors
384 P.3d 316
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Servs., cf. John Munic Enters., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (“Enforcing the expectation interests of the parties is one of the principal goals of remedying a breach of contract.”).
- Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Noguero v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- DON C. ROBERTSON v. ROBERT E. ALLING and JACQUELINE R. ALLING 332 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
DON C. ROBERTSON v. ROBERT E. ALLING and JACQUELINE R. ALLING
332 P.3d 76
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See John Munic Enters., (“[C]ourts look to substance not labels.”).