Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jones v. Burk, 795 P.2d 238.

64 citing documents.

Pellett v. Creighton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pellett v. Creighton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Mathis, 231 Ariz. at 124, ¶ 82 (recognizing that issues not raised in the opening brief are waived on appeal); (same).
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶26 for the proposition that the superior court can reduce a § 12-1103(B) 10 FLAUM v. HOERNIG, et al. Decision of the Court fee award if the plaintiff only partially succeeds.
Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review.”).
Lemay v. Lemay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lemay v. Lemay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review.”).
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dist., ¶ 43 (App. 2013) (finding the superior court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce the attorneys’ fee award further because the appellant did not “identify with any particularity what evidence supports a further reduction in fees beyond the reduction already granted by the trial court”); -98 (App. 1990) (declining to disturb attorneys’ fees award under A.R.S.
Shafer v. McCombs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shafer v. McCombs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDonald v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶58 Memi asserts that the court erred because, under Jones v. Burk, the fact that she requested the LLCs quitclaim more of the Property than she eventually recovered is not dispositive; instead, she claims that the LLCs should have quitclaimed “the lesser amount, the amount to which the other party is entitled.” –98 (App. 1990).
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 97, ); (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”) ().
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); (“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review.”) (citations omitted).
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Douros v. Douros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Douros v. Douros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review.”); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring a brief to contain “[Father]’s contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and
Midfirst v. Barness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Midfirst v. Barness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tavilla v. Blue Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97, (“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived.” ( )).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 15
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(failure to raise arguments in appellate brief waives consideration).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review.”); see also Ariz. R. Civ.App.
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(holding that issues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief constitute waiver of error on review).