Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Ader v. Estate of Felger, 375 P.3d 97.
-
WILLIAMSFIELD/HIGLEY v. STREN
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§ 14-3803; ¶ 18 (App. 2016).
-
DREAM v. SANTOS
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
But the superior court need not rule on a motion for additional discovery before ruling on a dispositive motion if the additional information sought would “ha[ve] no bearing on that issue and would have only delayed the inevitable result.” ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
- Goudeau v. Goudeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Goudeau v. Goudeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Trailhead v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Trailhead v. Phoenix
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 19 (App. 2016) (“A cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations commences, when one party is able to sue another.”) (cleaned up).
- Garsha v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Garsha v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
It is not synonymous with a "court's inability to enter a valid judgment," ¶ 42 (App. 2016), but rather is "the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts in any case relating to this question, and to determine whether or not they are sufficient to invoke the exercise of that power," (quoting Foltz v. St.
- Lampe v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Lampe v. Lampe
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶15 “’When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain language because that is “the best and most reliable indicator of a statute’s meaning.”’” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (quoting City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008)).
- Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin 491 P.3d 1109 Ariz. 2021
-
Thomas Cox v. Hon. ponce/makayla Esplin
491 P.3d 1109
Ariz. 2021
Sess.); ¶ 18 (App. 2016) (“Unlike a statute of limitations, a nonclaim statute is usu[ally] not subject to tolling and is not waivable.” ( ¶ 18 (App. 2011))); ¶ 19–23 (App. 2012) (explaining that equitable tolling does no
- Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Curtis v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Curtis v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Driver v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Driver v. Ador
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2016) (applying de novo review to the interpretation of statutory time limitations).
- Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt) 429 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt)
429 P.3d 1146
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ader v. Estate of Felger , , 35, ¶ 2, , 100 (App. 2016).
- Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Hobbs v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Hobbs v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22 (App. 2016) (a personal representative acts on behalf of an estate, which is “a collection of the decedent’s assets and liabilities”); ¶ 11 (2009) (with few exceptions, Rule 32 was meant to consolidate most avenues of post-conviction relief “into a single comprehensive rem
- Gordon v. Estate of Brooks 397 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Gordon v. Estate of Brooks
397 P.3d 1040
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 14-3808(C) (claim based on contract entered into by personal representative in his or her fiduciary capacity may be asserted against estate by proceeding against personal representative in his or her fiduciary capacity, whether or not personal representative is individually liable); ¶ 22, (estate is a collection of decedent’s assets and liabilities and does not have capacity to bring or defend a suit; it can only sue and be sued through its personal representative) (citations and quotations om
- United States v. Verde Ditch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
United States v. Verde Ditch
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 37 (App. 2016) ripe for consideration and review.
- Dmarc 2006-Cd2 v. Bush Realty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Dmarc 2006-Cd2 v. Bush Realty
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).