Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allison v. State, 420 P.2d 289.

27 citing documents.

Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶24 “It is, of course, the universal rule requiring no citation of authority, that it is plaintiffs’ burden to establish their titles.”
Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Delprete v. Ditech Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Delprete v. Ditech Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biel v. Crg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Biel v. Crg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Indeed, the proponent of a claim to quiet title can only proceed “on the strength of his own title rather than the weakness of his adversary’s.” (citations omitted).
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Verde Water & Power Co. v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, , 197 P. 227, 228 (1921).
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
15 ¶30 “In a quiet title action the plaintiff must ordinarily prove his own title and cannot rely on defects in the defendant’s title.”
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
We recognize that where the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings presented and not excluded, it must treat the motion as one for summary judgment and give the parties a reasonable opportunity to present material pertinent to a motion for summary judgment
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Aldabbagh v. Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 783 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rule 12(b), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, , Accord Chandler v. Coughlin, 763 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1985).
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
but the question of navigability is one of fact as to which the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting such navigability unless the court takes judicial notice of its status in this respect.
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kennedy 711 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kennedy 711 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
C.f., , (grantee under federal land patent has burden of showing there was no right-of-way for federal aid highway across property).
Mounce v. Coleman 650 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Mounce v. Coleman 650 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Crook v. Anderson 565 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Crawford 441 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Crawford 441 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
*554 The State, , argues that reference to a 400 foot right-of-way-in the 1954 survey plat precludes plaintiff from asserting that the right-of-way does not exceed 100 feet.