Cited by

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

88 citing documents.

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
A trial court’s findings of fact satisfy Arizona law if they are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.” , see also Post v. Industrial Comm’n
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“A trial court which makes a finding of ultimate fact is not required to set forth all underlying and subsidiary and evidentiary facts giving rise to the ultimate fact.” -48 , -26 (App.1986); , Ellingson, 20 Ariz.App.
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Picture Rocks Fire District v. Pima County 733 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Picture Rocks Fire District v. Pima County 733 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass'n v. Esser 565 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass'n v. Esser 565 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
is only that no recovery of attorneys’ fees may be had where the amount recovered on the contract which contained the provision for attorneys’ fees is less than the amount due on a counterclaim.
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 529 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Atkinson v. Valley National Bank 526 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Atkinson v. Valley National Bank 526 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
appellee’s reasoning is followed, then they would be entitled to perform any wrongful invasion of any security interest that any citizen might have under the possession of the bank and appellee would be entitled to attorney’s fees for defending their tortious conduct.”
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
A court is only required to make findings of “ultimate facts.”
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
O'Hair v. O'Hair 508 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1973
316 , , , , , , , , , , , , 227 P. 995 (1924); , 226 P. 908 (1924); Grant
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
Meyer v. Warner 448 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1968
Kitchell Corporation v. Hermansen 446 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kitchell Corporation v. Hermansen 446 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
: “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, McGee v. Nee, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 543 , and if there is competent evidence of the existence of such facts, and
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
197 P. 894 ; Estate of Amirault, , 194 P. 1099 ; cf. Pioneer Constructors v. Symes, supra.
Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hunsaker v. Smith 399 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Gilmore v. Cohen 386 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1963
Gilmore v. Cohen 386 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1963
This amounted to trial of the issue by implied consent, , ; , ; , 288 P. 1029 (1930), and it will be treated as if raised in the pleadings.
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
Spector v. Spector 382 P.2d 659 Ariz. 1963
Beckwith v. Clevenger Realty Co. 360 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1961
Beckwith v. Clevenger Realty Co. 360 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1961
Leigh v. Swartz, supra, , .
State Tax Commission v. Murray Co. of Texas, Inc. 350 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1960
State Tax Commission v. Murray Co. of Texas, Inc. 350 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1960