Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., 7 P.3d 979.

31 citing documents.

DMB REALCO v. MARISCAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
The two-year statute of limitations period “does not commence until actionable negligence exists.” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2000) (quoting Com.
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (“[A]ccrual requires only actual or constructive knowledge of the fact of damage, rather than of the total extent or calculated amount of damage.”) (emphasis added).
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 12-542; CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
McKee v. Lamore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McKee v. Lamore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 12-543(3) (defining three-year limitations period for fraud claims); see also CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (explaining that A.R.S.
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
does not permit a party to hide behind its ignorance when reasonable investigation would have alerted it to the claim.”) (citing Doe, 191 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 37); see also CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (“[A]ccrual requires only actual or constructive knowledge of the fact of damage, rather than of the total extent or calculated amount of damage.”) (citing Commercial Union Ins.
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Given our preference to resolve claims on their merits, “the statute of limitations defense is not favored.” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 5 (App. 2000) ().
Taser International, Inc. v. Ward 231 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Taser International, Inc. v. Ward 231 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 19 , (stating that we consider only the arguments, theories, and facts properly presented to the trial court).
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83 213 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary School District No. 83 213 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 19 , (holding that the court of appeals can only reverse a grant of summary judgment based upon theories, arguments, and facts properly presented to the trial court).
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., ¶ 19 , (declining to consider issues not presented to the superior court).
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria A. Keonjian v. Timothy A. Olcott, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Standard of Review ¶7 We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, remaining “mindful that ‘the statute of limitations defense is not favored.’” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.
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
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.3d 979 (App. 2000).
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See also CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by