Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sarti v. Udall, 369 P.2d 92.

52 citing documents.

Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
see also Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd., -93 , -53 (App.1996).
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Baird v. Pace 752 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Baird v. Pace 752 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bendalin v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 540 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bendalin v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 540 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
It is a well settled rule in the appellate court review of a judgment sustaining a motion for summary judgment that “the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.”
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rule 56(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; , ; Lawless v. Ennis, 3 Ariz.App.
Hensley v. Town of Peoria 485 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hensley v. Town of Peoria 485 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lawless v. Ennis, 3 Ariz.App.
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 481 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1971
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 481 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1971
Gangadean v. LEUMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION 478 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gangadean v. LEUMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION 478 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
“We agree with appellants that a motion for summary judgment is not a ‘trial by *538 affidavits.’
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
and Power Dist., , ; , ; , ; Peterson v. Valley Nat.
In Re Estate of Sherer 455 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Estate of Sherer 455 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
We agree with appellants that a motion for summary judgment is not a “trial by affidavits.”
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Employee is on a monthly salary and is not paid overtime but was paid for time off.” The law is clear in Arizona that: “A motion for summary judgment should not be granted if upon an examination of the entire record it is determined that there is a disputed fact which, if true, could affect the final judgment.”
Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Viewing the evidence most favorably to the person against whom the summary judgment was granted, , , we find the following facts necessary for a determination of this.matter on appeal.
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Martin v. Burns 429 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1967
Martin v. Burns 429 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1967
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Smith v. Lassen 423 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Smith v. Lassen 423 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Secondly, Smith contends that Woolsey’s affidavit that lie was kept off the subject claims by “armed guards” must he accepted as true on a motion for summary judgment, , and that for the purposes of the motion, therefore, the Banner lease should be considered “void” because its entry on the land was in “bad faith” , and Brown v. Murphy, 36 Cal.App.2d 171
Brown v. White 419 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Brown v. White 419 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
the question becomes whether a genuine issue of fact is presented by the record, and not, if one exists, how it should be decided, (citations omitted) A motion for summary judgment is not a trial by affidavit, (citations omitted) “In resolving the question framed above, the record must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.”
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Lawless v. Ennis 415 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Lawless v. Ennis 415 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Continental Casualty Company v. Grabe Brick Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Goetz v. Phillips 409 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Goetz v. Phillips 409 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
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
Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass'n 387 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1963
Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass'n 387 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1963
Lowther v. Hopper Truck Lines 377 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1962
Lowther v. Hopper Truck Lines 377 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1962