Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, 32 P.3d 39.

70 citing documents.

Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flaum v. Hoernig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
Engram v. Uaic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Engram v. Uaic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 16 (App. 2001); Ariz. R. Civ.
Todd Underwood v. Thomas Wilczynski and Dana Wilczynski Janet A. Bewley... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Todd Underwood v. Thomas Wilczynski and Dana Wilczynski Janet A. Bewley... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
7 See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
or financial gain.” Together, these canons of statutory interpretation divorce the requirements for what constitutes “any act” punishable by more than a year in prison from what qualifies as “any of the following acts if committed for financial gain.” ¶17 In ruling Angulo-Murrieta’s conduct fell within the racketeering definition, the superior court relied on In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 12 (App. 2001); A.R.S.
Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although a party’s failure to contest an argument on appeal may be deemed a confession of error, see In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001), we decline to do so here.
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (“In ruling on a party’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court should consider those facts that would be admissible in evidence.”).
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Asphalt Eng’rs, 160 Ariz. at 136; see also In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (unsworn assertions in a 8 BRODY, et al. v. POLSINELLI Decision of the Court memorandum are not facts to be considered when deciding a motion for summary judgment).
Brimley v. Jirauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brimley v. Jirauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 6 (App. 2001).
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 36 (App. 2016) (citing In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001), ¶ 9 (App. 2014)).
Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 36 (App. 2016) (citing In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001), ¶ 9 (App. 2014)).
Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Grubb v. Thraikill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 36 (App. 2016) (citing In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 (App. 2001)).
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
We could consider TEPOA’s failure to respond to this argument to be a confession of error, see In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, but in our discretion we do not do so
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Because the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not itself an appealable order, see In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., and because the trial court did not address these claims below, see Stewart v. Mut.
Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
- 70, -25 (1985); In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 37 Campos also cites ¶ 9 , but this ease does not support his argument either.
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Perry v. Honorable Emmet Ronan 234 P.3d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 7 , (failure to address issues raised on appeal "can be considered a confession of error”).
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
12 Braillard asserts correctly that the defendants have failed to address these issues in their answering briefs, an omission which “c[ould] be considered a confession of error.” See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
HUGHES CUSTOM BLDG, LLC v. Davey 212 P.3d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
HUGHES CUSTOM BLDG, LLC v. Davey 212 P.3d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, , -44 (App.2001).
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, , (failure to address in answering brief issues raised on appeal “can be considered a confession of error”).
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
App. P. 13(a)(6); In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, -44 (App. 2001) (court will not address unsupported argument).