Cited by

See Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004); 4 WALLACE v. IRVING, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

at 257, ¶ 7; ChartOne, -66, ¶ 8 (App. 2004).

We interpret procedural rules de novo, Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004), using principles of statutory interpretation, ¶ 7 (2007).

¶18 “It is well established that, in an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

We interpret procedural rules de novo, Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004), and using principles of statutory interpretation.

Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004).

¶12 However, we may accept special-action jurisdiction when the respondent judge erred as a matter of law, and addressing the issue “will serve the interests of judicial economy,” see also ChartOne, (accepting special-action jurisdiction, in part, to avoid “unnecessary expenditure of time and money”).

See Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

¶11 “[I]n an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract.” Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

See Trustmark, 202 Ariz. at 543, ¶ 38 (holding that jury could not have found in plaintiff’s favor on negligence claim when it awarded zero damages because actual damages are an element of the claim); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini (Ronald D. Mercaldo, Ltd., et al.), ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (holding that breach of contract claim includes the element of damages).

Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004); Thunderbird Metallurgical

See Chartone, –66, ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2004).

4 BARKLEY v. ICEP Decision of the Court ¶15 In a breach of contract case, “the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

¶12 “It is well established that, in an action based on a breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

“[I]n an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” 11 LAKESIDE et al. v. MEYERS Decision of the Court Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004).

Chartone, ¶ 30, (citations omitted).

“It is well established that, in an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, ¶ 30 (App. 2004) (citations omitted).

See Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004) (interpretation of court rules is a question of law that is reviewed de novo); E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19 (App. 2003) (appellate court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo).

See Chartone, -66, ¶¶ 7-8 , ¶ 10

“It is well established that, in an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, ¶ 30