Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce, 988 P.2d 143.

56 citing documents.

Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 23 -61, ¶¶ 5, 6 , -46 (App.1999), we examined both Lewis and Lindner and rejected the arguments that Roush makes here.
Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
This proposition flows from Bradshaw , where the court found that “[n]otwithstanding dismissal of the action, settlement may be a favorable termination.” 157 Ariz. at 419 , 758 P.2d at 1321 ; ¶ 12 , (“Even though the underlying case was concluded by a settlement, rather than an adjudication on the merits, the termination may nonetheless be favorable to the plaintiff.”).
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002