DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc., 803 P.2d 450.

28 citing documents.

  • Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Palestina v. McMillin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Ancell v. Union Station Assocs., Inc., –61 (App. 1990) (“A written agreement may be subsequently modified by the parties .
  • AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
  • AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
    Below, plaintiffs admitted they had not yet “deposed anyone from the Oro Valley Police Department to determine where that number came from,” and they do not appear to have contested the court’s lack-of-foundation determination.3 See Ancell v. Union Station Assocs., Inc., (objection to insufficient documentation required so offering party may have opportunity to cure alleged defects; deficiencies in supporting documents attached to summary judgment pleadings can be waived).
  • Best v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Best v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶10 Entry of summary judgment requires the material facts be undisputed, and that “only one reasonable inference can be drawn from those facts.” Ancell v. Union Station Assoc., Inc.
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Ancell v. Union Station Assocs., Inc.
  • state/ador v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • state/ador v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (holding that timely objections to supporting documentation are necessary to allow the offering party a chance to cure alleged defects) (citing Johnson ex rel.
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc., (“‘Conduct can manifest acceptance of an offer or acquiescence in a modification.’”) (citation omitted); see also Prudential, 140 Ariz. at 266 (“The acts of the parties themselves, before disputes arise, are the best evidence of the meaning of doubtful contractual terms.”).
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -16 , (providing that parties may substitute a new contract for the old one by mutual consent)
  • Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Ancell v. Union Station Assoc., Inc.
  • BRYSTAL McCLOUD v. THOMAS MAX KIMBRO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • BRYSTAL McCLOUD v. THOMAS MAX KIMBRO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    Ancell v. Union Station Assocs., Inc., 166 Ariz. 457, 459, Smithey, 189 Ariz. at 106, 938 P.2d at 501; Robarge, 131 Ariz. at 283, 640 P.2d at 213 (legal conclusions to be drawn from undisputed facts are properly resolved by court).
  • Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 123 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 123 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    The identity of the children’s father or fathers is unknown.
  • Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court “views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and all favorable inferences fairly arising from the evidence must be given to the opposing party.” , (citations omitted).
  • Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    Corp., , Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc.
  • A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA 892 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1995
  • A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA 892 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1995
    (evidentiary and foundational objections to sufficiency of supporting documents attached to summary judgment pleadings are necessary to allow offering party an opportunity to cure defects); see also Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks, 25 F.3d 610 , 611 n. 2 (8th Cir.)
  • Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Summary judgment is properly granted only when “there is no genuine dispute of material fact, only one reasonable inference can be drawn from those facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ancell v. Union Station Ass’n, Inc.