Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. Bear, 350 P.2d 751.

47 citing documents.

Okland v. Zurn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Okland v. Zurn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“It is a fundamental rule of law that parties are bound by their pleadings .
Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Levine v. Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & Mcanally, P. L.C. 418 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cf. Adams v. Bear , , 294, , 755 (1960) ("[A] party is bound by his judicial declarations and may not contradict them in ...
Smartcomm v. Palmieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Smartcomm v. Palmieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rather, it is arguing that the Court ignored evidence Smartcomm presented and made fundamental errors in applying the law to the evidence before it.” Having taken this position, Smartcomm is estopped from now claiming it “was denied the opportunity to address [discovery deficiencies] because of the trial court’s ruling prematurely granting summary judgment.” (“[A] party is bound by his judicial declarations and may not contradict them in .
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37, In re: Estate of Cohen, -41, - 24 (1970); -12 (1951); 268 P. 181, 184 (1928); ¶ 27, review denied (Jan.
United Insurance Co. of America v. Lutz 258 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
United Insurance Co. of America v. Lutz 258 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(stating a party is bound by its pleadings and may not admit evidence to contradict its allegations).
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
("[A] claim which is a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) ...
Cambridge Co. v. Arizona Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 801 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cambridge Co. v. Arizona Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 801 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
As the case appellants have cited indicates, however, judicial estoppel applies to allegations in pleadings and declarations, , not to arguments in the alternative.
La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
State v. De La Ossa 623 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. De La Ossa 623 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
See, , and State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.
Nelson v. Cannon 616 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 601 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1979
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 601 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1979
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
We note that although the language of a number of our early decisions set forth the principle of judicial estoppel in terms of applying only to cases involving the same parties, Martin v. Wood, supra; , and others, a recent Court of Appeals decision, Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz.App.
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and Otis Elevator Co. v. Valley National Bank, 8 Ariz.App.
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Sailes v. Jones 499 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz.App.
Mecham v. City of Glendale 489 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mecham v. City of Glendale 489 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
this Court stated that it is "* * * a general rule that a party is bound by his judicial declarations and may not contradict them in a subsequent proceedings [sic] involving the same parties and questions."
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Additionally, there are the necessary elements for the imposition of a judicial estoppel (by the sworn pleadings and testimony in the unlawful detainer action)
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Otis Elevator Company v. Valley National Bank 447 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
: “ * * * a party is bound by his judicial declarations and may not contradict them in a subsequent proceedings [sic] involving the same parties and questions.” (Emphasis supplied) , , 268 P. 181
Headley v. Headley 419 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
Headley v. Headley 419 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
modified , ; , ; , 299 P. 124 .
Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13(a); , Fletcher v. State ex rel.
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Estoppel § 119, P. 381: “As a general rule, a party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions.” , ; , , , 268 P. 181 .