Cited by

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

70 citing documents.

Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, (“‘Generally the “facts” which the trial court will consider as “admissible in evidence” in ruling on a motion for summary judgment are those which are set forth in an affidavit or deposition; an unsworn and unproven assertion in a memorandum is not such a fact.’”), quoting Prairie Sta
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, (failure to address argument in answering brief can be considered confession of error).
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Meiners v. University of Arizona , State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Although, in our discretion, “[s]uch an omission can be considered a confession of error,” In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, we decline to treat it as such here, and, accordingly, address the issue on its merits.
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Martin v. Schroeder 105 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
2 (evidence in opposition to motion for summary judgment must be admissible); In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, , (trial court should consider only admissible evidence).
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 99 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 99 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Although we may conclude that Pima County is not a proper party, see In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, , that conclusion would not divest us of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, , (argument not supported by authority waived).
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
deterrence of illegal activities.” In re 1996 Nissan Sentra
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, ¶ 2
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In re 1996 Nissan Sentra Vin: 1N4AB41D1TC74220 Az Lie: 162ARH, ¶ 8
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, P.3d 39 (App. 2001).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by