Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Elerick v. Rocklin, 425 P.2d 103.

61 citing documents.

Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Construction Corp. 802 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
is not a substitute for a trial” and “litigants are entitled to the right of trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts.” , see also Chiara v. Fry’s Food Stores, Inc.
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Construction Corp. 802 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Nanini v. Nanini 802 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nanini v. Nanini 802 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, , (reversing summary judgment for plaintiff).
El Dorado Hotel Properties, Ltd. v. Mortensen 665 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
El Dorado Hotel Properties, Ltd. v. Mortensen 665 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Although we must view the facts in their most favorable light to the appellants, , these facts were actually undisputed.
Matter of Estate of Smith 639 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Matter of Estate of Smith 639 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
National Housing Industries, Inc. v. E. L. Jones Development Co. 576 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
National Housing Industries, Inc. v. E. L. Jones Development Co. 576 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Fremming Construction Co. v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n 566 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Fremming Construction Co. v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n 566 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Chanay v. Chittenden 563 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1977
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
P.2d 103 (1967), wherein the court notes: “Rule 56(e) is explicit in requiring that 'Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated th
Maricopa County v. Biaett 518 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Maricopa County v. Biaett 518 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Rule 56(e), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Panagiotis v. Miltiades 497 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
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
Elerick v. H. B. Rocklin Real Estate Investments supra [ , ].” In re Estate of Sherer, 10 Ariz.App.
Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Pitzen's Wig Villa v. Pruitt 464 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
Nielson v. Savoy 464 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1970
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Sav.
Transamerica Insurance v. Valley National Bank 462 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Transamerica Insurance v. Valley National Bank 462 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
The facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs against whom the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, , are as follows: Lucille Sullivan had been an employee of the defendant for approximately twelve years on the date when the acts complained of occurred.
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd ed. 1953) Sec.
Schock v. Jacka 460 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1969
Schock v. Jacka 460 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1969
Elerick v. H. B. Rocklin, Real Estate Investments
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
See, e. g., , and see Flynn v. Lindenfeld, 6 Ariz.App.
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Robbins Investment Co. v. Green Rose Associates, Inc. 448 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968