Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Logerquist v. Danforth, 932 P.2d 281.

113 citing documents.

Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whitestone v. Jade Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Maxted v. Tws Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Maxted v. Tws Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mertola, LLC v. Santos 390 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mertola, LLC v. Santos 390 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Given our preference to resolve claims on their merits, “the statute of limitations defense is not favored.” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 5 (App. 2000) ().
Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We will affirm if the trial court’s disposition is correct for any reason.”
Watkins v. Arpaio 367 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Watkins v. Arpaio 367 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
CBS v. Alma School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
CBS v. Alma School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This court “determine[s] de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,” ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citation omitted), and “independently review[s] questions of law,” (citations omitted).
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Similarly, we “independently review any questions of law relating to the statute of limitations defense.” ¶ 15 (App. 2008) ().
Abn v. Garvey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Abn v. Garvey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rewers v. Pope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rewers v. Pope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health Alliance 307 P.3d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health Alliance 307 P.3d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
[w]e must determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in applying the law.”
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 17 , (“[I]t is often the rule that in such eases the question of accrual is for the jury.”); , (“[Determination of a claim’s accrual date usually is a question of fact----”); , (“[T]he discovery issue itself involves questions of reasonableness and knowledge, matters which this court is particularly wary of decid
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
More specifically, “[w]hether a particular statute of limitations applies is a question of law, which we review de novo.” -63 , -31 (App.1996); , (we “independently review any questions of law relating to the statute of limitations defense”).
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Standard of Review ¶7 We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, remaining “mindful that ‘the statute of limitations defense is not favored.’” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.
La Canada Hills Limited Partnership v. Florence Kite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
La Canada Hills Limited Partnership v. Florence Kite Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(appellate court generally affords trial court first opportunity to address and rule on issues).
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
23 i.e., the condu ct constituting the sexual abuse and the identity of the abuser.”) (citation omitted); (cause of action accr ues w hen plain tiff k now s or reaso nably should know of “defendant’s negligent conduct” or “whe n the plaintiff is first able to su e”); 284 (App .
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
We review de novo “any questions of law relating to the statute of limitations defense,” , and, as here, the determination of when a particular cause of action accrues if it hinges solely on a question of law rather than resolution of disputed facts.
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
We review de novo “any questions of law relating to the statute of limitations defense,” , mindful that the defense “is not favored.” Id.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001