Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Black v. Perkins, 787 P.2d 1088.

28 citing documents.

Myers v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Myers v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Las Ventanas v. Adeq Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Las Ventanas v. Adeq Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In that respect, the proposed second amended complaint “did not reframe the issues,” and would not have cured the prior complaint’s “defects,”
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clementine v. Ruhorimbere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“When the parties have framed the issues for resolution, they may not change them absent an amendment of the pleadings or trial of the issue by consent.”
Rcbt v. Cit Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rcbt v. Cit Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“When the parties have framed the issues for resolution, they may not change them absent an amendment of the pleadings or trial of the issue by consent.”).
First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(party who admitted certain property was community property was precluded “[b]y the pleadings alone” from later objecting to that characterization of the property); (defendants who did not wish to be bou
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
has agreed to a certain set of facts, he may not contradict them.”
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“When a party by pleading or stipulation has agreed to a certain set of facts, he may not contradict them.
Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“When a party by pleading or stipulation has agreed to a certain set of facts, he may not contradict them.
Moore v. Brewer Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moore v. Brewer Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ass’n., 196 Ariz. at 176, ¶ 11, 993 P.2d at 1140 ( ).
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
(“When a party by pleading or stipulation has agreed to a certain set of facts, he may not contradict them.”).
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
accord 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 68 (2012) (“Judicial estoppel bars changes in factual positions and does not extend to inconsistent opinions or legal positions.”).
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Roland v. Bernstein 828 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Roland v. Bernstein 828 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991