DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schlecht v. Schiel, 262 P.2d 252.

66 citing documents.

  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (“[O]ne who deliberately leads the court to 19 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of the Court take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”).
  • Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”); see also Thorn, 235 Ariz. at 224 ¶ 35.
  • In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
  • In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
    ¶ 8 (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” ()).
  • Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
  • Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
    See Gillespie Land & (holding that a landowner may be strictly liable for damages caused by diverting natural waters or flood waters onto neighboring and downstream properties); (same); (stating a landowner may be strictly liable for off-premises injuries caused by conducting abnormally dangerous activities on his land, such as blasting with explosives); see also 42 U.S.C.
  • Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 35 (App. 2014); (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling–T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moye v. Moye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shacknai v. Shacknai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (“By the rule of invited 8 SHACKNAI v. SHACKNAI Decision of the Court error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abro
  • 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
    (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” , abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • In Re Mh2010-002348 268 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • In Re Mh2010-002348 268 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    “By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” , , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).
  • Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Therefore, we agree with the trial court that any error regarding the Camino Verde house “was either waived or induced by [the Sholes].” (“[O]ne who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”).
  • Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Therefore, we agree with the trial court that any error regarding the Camino Verde house “was either waived or induced by [the Sholes].” , (“[0]ne who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”).
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (“[O]ne who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.”); , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (invited error doctrine prevents party from injecting trial error and profiting from it
  • In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Mh2009-002120 237 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).
  • In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In re MH 2009-001264 229 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” , , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).
  • Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Duwyenie v. Moran 207 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    240, 242 , , (“one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error”), disapproved in part on other grounds, Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Inv.
  • City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 167 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 167 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See , (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error”).
  • West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Trespass occurs where naturally flowing water is cast on the real property of another “who is under no duty or obligation to receive the same.”
  • Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    Schlec[h]t v. Schiel, [,] [.]
  • Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    is controlling on this issue.
  • Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    The drug companies cite two cases for the proposition that the plaintiff may not appeal an “invited error”, , , *41