Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Martin v. Wood, 229 P.2d 710.

44 citing documents.

State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Hon. Jeffrey T. Bergin, Hon. Danielle Liwski Remington 541 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. Jeffrey T. Bergin, Hon. Danielle Liwski Remington 541 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
subsequent proceedings involving the same parties and questions.") (citations omitted); Martin v. Wood , , 459-60, , 711-13 (1951) (proscribing "the mischiefs" that would occur "from the destruction of all confidence in the intercourse and dealings of men, if they were allowed to deny that which by their solemn and deliberate acts they have declared to be true") (quoting Hatten Realty Co. v. Baylies , 42 Wyo
Smartcomm v. Palmieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Smartcomm v. Palmieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
subsequent proceedings involving the same parties and questions.”) (citations omitted); (proscribing “the mischiefs” that would occur “from the destruction of all confidence in the intercourse and dealings of men, if they were allowed to deny that which by their solemn and deliberate acts they have declared to be true”) (quoting Hatten Realty Co. v. Baylies, 290 P. 561, 566 (Wyo.
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37, In re: Estate of Cohen, -41, - 24 (1970); -12 (1951); 268 P. 181, 184 (1928); ¶ 27, review denied (Jan.
Hileman v. Hileman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hileman v. Hileman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
("[A] party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions."
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
[from assuming] an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions.’” -12 (1951).
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Generally, “ ‘a party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions.’” , , -12 (1951) (emphasis added).
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
-12 (1951) (citing 31 C.J.S.
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 601 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1979
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 601 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1979
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and Otis Elevator Co. v. Valley National Bank, 8 Ariz.App.
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz.App.
Mecham v. City of Glendale 489 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mecham v. City of Glendale 489 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co. 476 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co. 476 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank, 8 Ariz.App.
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
where we held: "The doctrine of judicial estoppel is equally applicable to the case at bar.
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
: “ * * * a party is bound by his judicial declarations and may not contradict them in a subsequent proceedings [sic] involving the same parties and questions.” (Emphasis supplied) , , 268 P. 181 (1928).
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Estoppel § 119, P. 381: “As a general rule, a party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions.” , ; , , , 268 P. 181 .
Adams v. Bear 350 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1960
Adams v. Bear 350 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1960
Fox v. Weissbach 259 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1953
Fox v. Weissbach 259 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1953
reviewed the authorities and determined the rule to be that a party is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and Questions.