DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Union Interchange, Inc. v. Van Aalsburg, 432 P.2d 589.

37 citing documents.

  • Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (holding "an order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgment"); see also Union Interchange, ("A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the merits of the plaintiff's cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause of action.").
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    A judgment dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not appealable, Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016), because it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the action, Union Interchange
  • Laurence v. Srp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Laurence v. Srp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    P. 41(b) (with limited exceptions not applicable here, involuntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits); Union Interchange, (“The granting of a motion for summary judgment is a judgment on the merits and a bar to a later suit on the same cause of action .
  • Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Baker v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    A judgment dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not appealable, Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016), because it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the action, Union Interchange
  • Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Union Interchange, (“A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the 7 BANK OF NEW YORK v. IVAYLO DODEV Opinion of the Court merits of the plaintiff’s cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause of action.”); Airfreig
  • Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Union Interchange, (“A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the merits of the plaintiff's cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause of action.”).
  • Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Union Interchange, (“A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the merits of the plaintiff’s cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause of action.”); 141 P. 126, 127 (1914) (“An order of dismissal without prejudice is not a final d
  • Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    otherwise specifies.” A dismissal without prejudice, however, is not an adjudication on the merits and does not bar a second action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.4 See Union Interchange, We use the more modern terms “claim preclusion” instead of “res judicata” and “issue preclusion” instead of “collateral estoppel.” See Circle K Corp. v. Indus.
  • 4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
  • 4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
    E.g., Union Interchange, (noting that summary judgment is a judgment on the merits and a bar to a later suit on the same cause of action); 243 P. 413, 415 (1926) (observing that “[a] judgment of dismissal ‘with 2 The Restatement (Fi
  • Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Clark v. DS Rentco, Inc. 854 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Clark v. DS Rentco, Inc. 854 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Grand v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co. 837 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • Grand v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co. 837 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • Dowell v. Ross 657 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1982
  • Dowell v. Ross 657 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1982
    Union Interchange, , accord, El Paso Nat.
  • El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
  • El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
  • Snow v. Steele 588 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1978
  • Snow v. Steele 588 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1978
    Foam Paint and Coatings, Inc. argues that the previous decision of this Court in Union Interchange, , “equates the Rule 6(f) defense of abatement with a Rule 41(b) dismissal * * The Peraltas argue that Rule 12(b) was totally inapplicable to the case “since Rule 41 is the executing rule * * But as we view the rules, this is of no importance.
  • Grobe v. McBryde 468 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • Grobe v. McBryde 468 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1970
  • Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    *582 “ * * * Rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the just and expeditious prosecution of a case through the courts and should not be burdened with the niceties of gamesmanship; the rules were promulgated to obviate that very evil.”
  • Garcia v. Frey 442 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Garcia v. Frey 442 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    They rely upon Union Interchange