Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz., 289 P.2d 183.

78 citing documents.

Roberts v. State 483 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Roberts v. State 483 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board 379 P.3d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board 379 P.3d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although the Board did not file a cross-appeal, see Maricopa County v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“In the absence of a cross-appeal the appellee can defend only as to the items allowed below and cannot present rejected claims.”), we may nonetheless use our discretion in determining whether to address the issues, see Azore, –27 ¶¶ 6–7
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , ("In the absence of a cross-appeal the appellee can defend only as to the items allowed below and cannot present rejected claims.”); Progressive Specialty Ins.
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Corp. Comm'n of Ariz., (stating that an appellee who desires to attack the judgment to either enlarge his rights or lessen the rights of his adversary must cross-appeal).
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Maricopa County v. Corp. Comm’n of Arizona, , (emphasis added).
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
however, the state urges that the taxpayers’ failure to cross-appeal from the fee judgment, to the extent that the trial court rejected these two theories of recovery, precludes the taxpayers from relying on them to sustain the award on appeal.
State v. Anderson 827 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1992
State v. Anderson 827 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1992
seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary.” Maricopa County v. Corporation Comm’n of Arizona
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Citing Walters v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Phoenix, , , the Department argues that a cross-appeal was required because the trial court did not base its judgment against the Department in TA 87-00080 on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The general rule regarding cross-appeals was given by our supreme court in Marico *340 , : [I]f appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary____ If, however, it is sought by such cross-assignments to attack said judgment with a view either of “enlarging his own ri
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hoffman v. Greenberg 767 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Babnew v. Linneman 740 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Babnew v. Linneman 740 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz
Ryan v. State 724 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ryan v. State 724 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ariz. Pub. Serv. v. Mount. States Tel. & Tel. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
289 * the supreme court stated that if an appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 717 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
289 * the supreme court stated that if an appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary.
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
Walters v. First Federal Savings & Loan, , Maricopa County v. Corp. Comm’n of Arizona
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
: [T]hat if appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgments of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary....
Walters v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 641 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1982
Walters v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 641 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1982
Hernandez v. Banco De Las Americas 570 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1977
Hernandez v. Banco De Las Americas 570 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1977
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Madisons Chevrolet, Inc. v. Donald 505 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Talley v. Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. 491 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1971
Talley v. Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. 491 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1971
wherein this Court said: “[I]f appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgment of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary, [citation omitted] If, however, it is sought by such cross-assignments to attack said judgment w
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
This is m , where we held: “ * * * that if appellee in its brief seeks only to support or defend and uphold the judgments of the lower court from which the opposing party appeals, a cross-appeal is not necessary.
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970