Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Alliance Marana v. Groseclose, 955 P.2d 43.
- JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Detruit v. Castle Rock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Detruit v. Castle Rock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[W]e view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment.”
- Cabral v. Ddd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Cabral v. Ddd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen
207 P.3d 654
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 8 “A party has standing to sue in Arizona if, under all circumstances, the party possesses an interest in the outcome of the litigation.”
- State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
- State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
- Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- 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
- Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
City of Tucson v. Pima County
19 P.3d 650
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“Whether appellants have standing to sue is a question of law we review de novo.”
- KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens
13 P.3d 772
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Citizens argues that only a “natural person” can be included in the meaning of “citizen,”
- Sears v. Hull 961 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1998
-
Sears v. Hull
961 P.2d 1013
Ariz. 1998
See Armory Park, 148 Ariz. at 6 , 712 P.2d at 919 ; Herrera, 121 Ariz. at 15-16 , 588 P.2d at 308-09 ; , , (affirming summary judgment against plaintiff because plaintiff did not have standing as a taxpayer or resident to challenge a municipal contract).