Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin, 837 P.2d 1180.

30 citing documents.

Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Ariz. 54, ¶ 7, see also Aldrich &
City of Sierra Vista v. Sierra Vista Wards System Voting Project Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
City of Sierra Vista v. Sierra Vista Wards System Voting Project Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
We also exercise our discretion to consider these issues because “the question[s raised are] of statewide public importance.” Id., quoting Aldrich &
Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. 258 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. 258 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
the matter involved is one which affects the general public interest, or where a legal principle, although not suggested by either party, should be adopted on appeal to expedite the enforcement of a right, or redress a wrong.'")); Aldrich & , (appeals court has discretion to consider an issue not raised in the superior court if the question is of statewide importance).
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We also have discretion to consider an issue not raised in the superior court if "the question is one of statewide public importance,” Aldrich & , which we deem this waiver issue to be.
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Aldrich & -49, -84 (App. 1992).
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Aldrich & -48 , -83 (App.1992)
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Hall, 191 Ariz. at 106 , 952 P.2d at 750 ; Aldrich &amp
Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
For res judicata purposes, “[a] privy is one who, after rendition of the judgment, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, or purchase.” , (citations omitted); see also Garrett v. Holmes-Tuttle Broadway Ford, 5 Ariz.App.
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Aldrich & -48 , -83 (App.1992).
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Aldrich & -48 , -83 (App.1992)
Norriega v. MacHado 878 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Norriega v. MacHado 878 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Leone v. Precision Plumbing and Heating of S. Arizona, Inc., , , (only those theories raised below are preserved for appeal).