Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gilliland v. Rodriquez, 268 P.2d 334.

88 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rabin v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rabin v. McGhee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“It is unnecessary for the court to make findings on undisputed matters.”).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ultimate facts are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.”
Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., ().
Ford v. Erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ford v. Erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Findings of fact satisfy this requirement if they are sufficient to allow an appellate court “to test the validity of the judgment.”
Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Electrical Advertising, 3 MILLER, et al. v. HILL Decision of the Court (“Failure to formally amend the pleadings will not affect a judgment based upon compete
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kristi C. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kristi C. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-68 (1954) (unnecessary to make findings on undisputed matters).
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., 266 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1959))); –68 (1954) (unnecessary to make findings on undisputed matters).
State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Miller v. Board of Sup’rs of Pinal County, ().
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
207, 208–09 (1963)) (order that omitted ultimate facts provided no basis for the court to determine whether trial court’s legal conclusions were sound); (“The ultimate test of the adequacy thereof is whether they are pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.”).
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Because a court’s factual findings are to enable an appellate court to effectively examine the basis for the superior court’s decision, only findings of the ultimate facts are required for an effective review, without the need to “bolster them by subsidiary findings on evidentiary matters upon which such ultimate facts are based.” ¶ 25 (App. 2012); In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, ¶ 7 (App. 2000); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“A court is called upon to make findings of only ultimate facts and is not required to bolster them by subsidiary findings .
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
the case will be treated as though the amendments were made.” (“It is also the rule that the admission of evidence without objection will enlarge the pleadings and render it proper for the trial court to treat the pleadings as though amended so as to conform to the proof.”).
Security v. Reyelts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Security v. Reyelts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(holding that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires the court to find only the ultimate facts, not the evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate facts are based).
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Supervisors, , ( , ).
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“A court is called upon to make findings of only ultimate facts and is not required to bolster them by subsidiary findings on evidentiary matters upon which such ultimate facts are based----”).
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Relying on Post, , , the supreme court determined that the trial court’s findings did not approach the requirement that they be specific enough to allow us to test the validity of the judgme
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Ellingson v. Fuller, 20 Ariz.App.
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
set forth the reasons for its issuance.” Findings are sufficient if they are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.” , ( , ).
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
As we said long ago: "It is unfortunate that counsel for plaintiffs could not frame his complaint in simple language and thereby avoid expense and time-consuming effort on the part of court and counsel.”
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993