Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stevens v. Anderson, 256 P.2d 712.

53 citing documents.

Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lehman v. Fussell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
see also Cook, 142 Ariz. at 578; –36 (1953).
Martinez v. Ilem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Martinez v. Ilem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(recognizing the right of an innocent party who believes there was a good faith marriage may be entitled to recover proportionate share of the property accumulated during the relationship); see also, Cal.
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
See also, , , , Tyranski v. Piggins, 44 Mich.App.
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1984
-15 (1953) (emphasis supplied).
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cook v. Cook 691 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Pendleton v. Cilley 574 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1978
Pendleton v. Cilley 574 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1978
: “This practice [summary judgment] was established for protection against compelling one to submit to the delay, expense and harassment of litigation upon mere assertions, when it is shown that competent evidence cannot be presented to prove same.” Judgment affirmed.
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc., , ; and Abernethy v. Smith, 17 Ariz.App.
Abernethy v. Smith 498 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Abernethy v. Smith 498 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
stated: “When motion for summary judgment is presented, it becomes the duty of the trial court to examine the entire record and determine whether there is any disputed material fact which if true could have a bearing on the kind of final judgment which under the law should be rendered.
Brunell Leasing Corporation v. Wilkins 462 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Brunell Leasing Corporation v. Wilkins 462 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1235, at 146.
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
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
cited by appellees, is in accord with and authority for our holding.
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc. 417 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc. 417 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964
Cross v. Cross 381 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
Cross v. Cross 381 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1963
In re Mortenson’s Estate, , ; , .
Nyberg v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 372 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1962
Nyberg v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 372 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1962
Rule 56(c), Rules of Civil Procedure (1956), 16 A.R.S.
Colby v. Bank of Douglas 370 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1962
Colby v. Bank of Douglas 370 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1962
Sarti v. Udall 369 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1962
Perez v. Tomberlin 340 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1959
Perez v. Tomberlin 340 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1959
See, , ; , ; Whitfield Transportation v. Tucson Warehse & Transfer Co., , .
Hale v. Brown 323 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1958
Hale v. Brown 323 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1958
Justice Windes, speaking for a , at page 333, , gives a most comprehensive statement of the governing principles that are directly apropos to our problem in the present case, viz.: “When motion for summary judgment is presented, it becomes the duty of the trial court to examine the entire record and determine whether there is any
Aztec Land and Cattle Co. v. Navajo Realty Co. 283 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1955
Aztec Land and Cattle Co. v. Navajo Realty Co. 283 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1955
See, Malta v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , , , , together with the cases therein cited as to when a motion for summary judgment should or should not be granted.
Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. Tucson Warehouse & Transfer Co. 276 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1954