Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sibley v. Jeffreys, 305 P.2d 427.

35 citing documents.

In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
Ranch Joint Venture, II, –79 (App. 1993)
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Raimey, 227 Ariz. at 555 ¶ 6; Perez, 475 F.3d at 1113; (noting that trial courts may deviate from a remand if the previous ruling on appeal is “manifestly or palpably erroneous”).
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thomas v. Montelucia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comm’n of Ariz., –83 (1986) (Law of the case doctrine “should not be strictly applied when it would result in a manifestly unjust decision.”); (“We are of the opinion that a ruling on one appeal if manifestly or palpably erroneous is not to be treated as conclusive on subsequent appeal of the same case.”).
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because of the “potentially harsh nature of the doctrine,” Powell-Cerkonery, 176 Ariz. at 279, 860 P.2d at 1332, we will not apply it if doing so would result in a “manifestly unjust decision,”
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Because of the potentially harsh nature of the doctrine, we will not apply it if doing so would result in a “manifestly unjust decision.” , (citation omitted).
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Leo Eisenberg & Co., Inc. v. Payson 785 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1989
Additionally, the doctrine of law of the case does not apply when the former decision appears “palpably erroneous.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Tvedt 787 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
E.g., Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Comm’n
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986
Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Commission 720 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1986
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Emp. Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Emp. Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 565 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Likewise, Arizona has adopted the doctrine, , except when to dc.
Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 457 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Maricopa County Medical Society v. Blende 448 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1968
Maricopa County Medical Society v. Blende 448 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1968
Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State 441 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State 441 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
While the rule has variously been described as one of policy and judicial convenience rather than an absolute limit of power, it has been consistently followed in Arizona except where the previous appellate decision was “palpably erroneous” or “manifestly unjust.”
Graham County Electric Cooperaiive, Inc. v. Town of Safford 388 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1963
Graham County Electric Cooperaiive, Inc. v. Town of Safford 388 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1963
It is true that this state is committed to the rule that the doctrine of the law of the case is not to be considered binding under all circumstances, , .
Beliak Ex Rel. Beliak v. Plants 379 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1963
Beliak Ex Rel. Beliak v. Plants 379 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1963