Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Harbel Oil Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 345 P.2d 427.

30 citing documents.

Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Arizona Biltmore Hotel Villas Condominiums Ass’n, 249 Ariz. at 333 ¶¶ 33–36; (resolving whether trial court violated the mandate required analysis of the appellate court’s decision); 5 Am.
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Raimey v. Ditsworth 261 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(explaining that the determination of whether the trial court had authority to consider certain issues on remand would require analysis of the holding and terms of the mandate previously issued).
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-08 , -30 (1959) (on remand trial court retains jurisdiction over unconsidered defenses).
Arkules v. Board of Adjustment 780 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Arkules v. Board of Adjustment 780 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Valley National Bank, 18 Ariz.App.
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 556 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1976
Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 556 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1976
Sepo v. Case 541 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Sepo v. Case 541 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Prior to the adoption of the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, volume 17A of the Arizona Revised Statutes, effective on and after 1 January 1970 and before the appellate courts of this State became more liberal in granting extraordinary writ relief, , entertained two extraordinary writs to test whether the trial judge, after a reversal, was proceeding contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion and mandate.
State v. Boykin 538 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1975
State v. Boykin 538 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1975
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
342, 344 , this court stated, in connection with a problem of interpreting a prior decision of this court, that: “The mandate of the appellate court is the controlling document.” To support this statement
Northern Insurance v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1969
Northern Insurance v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hughes 446 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Hughes 446 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Hurst v. Hurst, 1 Ariz.App.
Vidal v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Vidal v. Industrial Commission 445 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The compliance or non-compliance with a
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
-430 (1959); and see Temp-Rite Engineering Co. v. Chesin Construction Co., 3 Ariz.App.
City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Glendale v. Skok 432 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Harbel Oil Company v. Steele 402 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Harbel Oil Company v. Steele 402 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965