Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Perguson v. Tamis, 937 P.2d 347.

60 citing documents.

Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 7 Larsen argues, however, that we should exercise de novo review because interpretation of a rule or statute is a question of law, and the trial court misinterpreted the Arizona Rules of Evidence, , (civil procedure rule’s interpretation is a legal issue reviewed de novo).
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998