Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., 937 P.2d 353.

38 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., see A.R.S.
State v. Hon. mahoney/ragsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hon. mahoney/ragsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., however, we held a defendant's failure to identify a nonparty by name was not fatal to its notice.
State v. Mahoney in and for County of Maricopa 442 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mahoney in and for County of Maricopa 442 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc ., , however, we held a defendant's failure to identify a nonparty by name was not fatal to its notice.
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
P. 26(b)(5) (identifying procedural requirements for parties’ providing notice of nonparty at fault pursuant to § 12-2506(B)); Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., (“Rule 26(b)(5) merely prescribes the method by which § 12-2506 is implemented and effectuated.”).
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Bowen Productions, Inc. v. French 296 P.3d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Bowen Productions, Inc. v. French 296 P.3d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 8 “ ‘The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on discovery and disclosure matters,’ and we will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 3 , (quoting Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , ).
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
They cite Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , for support.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 141 , 3 P.3d at 1061 (citing Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , )(procedural rules cannot abridge substantive rights).
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 82 A trial court “‘has broad discretion in ruling on discovery and disclosure matters,’ and we will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” , (quoting Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , ).
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
¶ 12 In determining which construction of the rule to adopt, we keep in mind that, “[i]f a rule and a statute appear to conflict, the rule is construed in harmony with the statute.” Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , see also De Camp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
See Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , (procedural rales cannot abridge substantive rights).
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Criticized Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., , (citation omitted).
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
See Daou, 139 Ariz. at 357 , 678 P.2d at 938 (substantive rights created by statutes cannot be enlarged or diminished by court rules); see also Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc.