Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 978 P.2d 119.

40 citing documents.

Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 12 (App. 1998) (holding courts may address a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal where “the issue is of statewide importance, is raised in the context of a fully developed record, does not turn on resolution of disputed facts, and has been fully briefed by the parties.”).
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1998)).
Quintana-Suarez v. Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quintana-Suarez v. Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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
¶ 10, (observing that “the causation element is factored in as ‘a necessary condition precedent to consideration of a person’s fault’ under [UCATA]”) ( ).
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
raised in the context of a fully developed record,” and have been “fully briefed by the parties.” ¶ 12, (citations omitted).
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.3, ¶ 17 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 12 (App. 1998)).
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Even so, we note that "[a] constitutional issue may be raised and addressed for the first time on appeal, particularly when, as here, the issue is of statewide importance, is raised in the context of a fully developed record, does not turn on resolution of disputed facts, and has been fully briefed by the parties.” ¶ 12
In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Although the state has not made this argument and we ordinarily will not consider issues not raised before the trial court, (App. 3 No other person or entity claiming an interest in the currency or vehicle appeared in the action below; the vehicle lienholder entered into a stipulation with the state, and no other owner or interest holder filed a judicial claim pursuant to § 13-4309(2).
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(addressing state constitutional claim not properly preserved on grounds of statewide importance).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 12 , (citing Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , Gosewisch v. Am.
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
However, “La] constitutional issue may be raised and addressed for the first time on appeal, particularly when, as here, the issue is of statewide importance, is raised in the context of a fully developed record, does not turn on resolution of disputed facts, and has been fully briefed by the parties.” ¶ 12 , (citing Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , Gosewisch v. Am.
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Moreover, constitutional questions can be raised for the first time on appeal when the issue is one of public policy or of broad, general or state-wide concern, , and, as here, has been fully briefed by the parties, ¶ 12
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co., 169 Ariz. 505, 510, see also Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp., 194 Ariz. 142, ¶ 5, (under UCATA, “‘each tortfeasor in a personal injury action is liable only for his or her share of fault’”)
Stop Exploiting Taxpayers v. Jones 125 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stop Exploiting Taxpayers v. Jones 125 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
We decline to address it because we perceive no issue of statewide importance, , , and no fundamental error.
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
24 , — Ariz. —, , 1998 WL 761667 (Ct.App.