Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rubens v. Costello, 251 P.2d 306.

49 citing documents.

AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
of Supervisors of Pima Cnty., –9 (1952); Home Builders Ass’n of Cent.
KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
KAUFMAN v. GUEVARA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–9 (1952) (quoting Town of S. Tucson v. Bd.
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
e constitutional [anti-abrogation] issue in the case at bench is sufficiently important that it should be considered even though not raised in the trial court.”); Evenstad, 178 Ariz. at 582 (“If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.” ()).
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Additionally, “when we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.” ().
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
And, because our eventual review of a trial court’s ruling on the issue would be de novo, our consideration now “impels the speedy enforcement of a right, or redress of a wrong, and, as a correct exposition of the law, is appropriate to the facts involved,”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.") ( , ).
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.”) ( , ).
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
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Resolution Trust Corp. v. City of Scottsdale 866 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. City of Scottsdale 866 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
That discretion is appropriately exercised only in cases in which a constitutional issue is raised, , the question is one of statewide public importance, , there is clearly a wrong to be redressed, Bohonus v. Am *448 erco, , or the unraised issue will dispose of the case on appeal and avoid the futility of returning it to the trial court to produce the same result, P.
State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Valley National Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America 836 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Valley National Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America 836 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hanlin 712 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Hanlin 712 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kalil Bottling Co. v. Burroughs Corp. 619 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Kalil Bottling Co. v. Burroughs Corp. 619 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Union Construction Co. v. Beneficial Standard Mortgage Investors 610 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Union Construction Co. v. Beneficial Standard Mortgage Investors 610 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Bohonus v. Amerco 602 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1979
Bohonus v. Amerco 602 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1979
where we held that, "[A] legal principle, although not suggested by either party at the trial (and we include on appeal) should be adopted in order to finally dispose of a cause on appeal if this impels the speedy enforcement of a right, or redress of a wrong, and, as a correct expositio
Beaugureau v. Beaugureau 463 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Beaugureau v. Beaugureau 463 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kenyon v. Kenyon, 5 Ariz.App.
In Re Estate of Taylor 424 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Re Estate of Taylor 424 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
and see 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 546, p. 31.
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959