Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 965 P.2d 47.

169 citing documents.

Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. , , see also Ariz. R. Civ.
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“On appeal from a summary judgment, we must determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in applying the law.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
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
-02 (App. 2005), quoting Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“On appeal from a summary judgment, we must determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in applying the law.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“We focus first on the statutory wording and, if it is ambiguous or inconclusive, we consider the statute’s ‘context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.’” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., quoting Mail Boxes, Etc., 181 Ariz. at 122, 888 P.2d at 780.
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In determining the meaning of a statute, we look first to its language, keeping in mind that we must “‘find and give effect to legislative intent.’” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., quoting Mailboxes Etc., U.S.A.
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Although the denial of summary judgment is usually not an appealable order, Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., an appellate court may review a denial if it was based on a point of law.
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Martin 113 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Martin 113 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
BACKGROUND ¶2 On appeal from a summary judgment, we view the facts “in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
See Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., -17 , ¶ 9 & n. 4, , 50-51 & n. 4 (App.1998) (declining to address the applicability of Article 18, Section 5 because of a factual dispute that already precluded judgment for defendants as a *411 matter of law); Morganteen v. Cowboy Adventures, Inc., , 466 & n. 5
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
2 BACKGROUND ¶2 Although the pertinent facts are essentially undisputed, in reviewing a grant of summary judgment, “we view all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 83 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 83 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 19 n. 4, , 51 n. 4 (App. 1998), and Morganteen v. Cowboy Adventures, Inc., , 466 n. 5, , 555 n. 5 (App.1997), we addressed express contractual assumptions without regard to Article 18, section 5.
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., P.2d 47 (App. 1998).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., , (we may affirm even if trial court reached right result for wrong reason); Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., , (“In order to avoid piecemeal litigation, ...
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Casualty of California Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Casualty of California Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., P.2d 47 (App. 1998).
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“[W]e view all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom [summary] judgment was en *491 tered.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., ¶ 2
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
Corp. v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, (“[A] contract is to be construed most strongly against the party who prepared it.”); cf. Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver 52 P.3d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., , (interpretation of release provision); Hartford Accident & Indem.
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001