Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO., 736 P.2d 13.

42 citing documents.

Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Dominguez v. Dominguez 547 P.3d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., (“On appeal from a summary judgment, parties are not allowed to advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal.”).
McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co. , , 283, , 17 (App. 1987) (pleadings insufficient to raise estoppel defense where party did not allege facts supporting every element).
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Co., see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981).
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Co., , see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981).
AMTRUST BANK v. Fossett 224 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , 282, , 16 (App. 1987); see also Long v. Turner, 134 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir.1998) (borrowers who paid tax on "income” reported when lender issued Form 1099-C were not relieved of the debt but were entitled to a credit in the amount of the tax they paid).
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (acknowledging the rule that utilities have “a legal duty to move their own equipment and should bear their own costs,” but holding that obligation does not extend to the contractor hired by the city).
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., , (appellate court will not consider parties’ new issues or theories raised on appeal from summary judgment).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Service Merchandise Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 937 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Service Merchandise Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 937 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lansford v. Harris 850 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. 838 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. 838 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Aboud v. DeConcini 842 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aboud v. DeConcini 842 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Contempo Construction Company v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company
Morrison v. Shanwick International Corp. 804 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Morrison v. Shanwick International Corp. 804 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Co., , (appellate court will not consider new issues or theories raised by parties on appeal from summary judgment); see also Herring v. Railway Exp.
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cahn v. Fisher 805 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Jennings v. Roberts Scott & Co., Inc. , Contempo Construction Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , Dillon-Malik
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Professional Sports, Inc. v. Gillette Security, Inc. 766 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by