Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Harmon v. Szrama, 429 P.2d 662.

32 citing documents.

Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shoni v. Hansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(affidavits filed in opposition to summary judgment motion “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”)
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
Moore v. Maricopa County, 11 Ariz.App.
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Corral v. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance 630 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
Pace v. Sagebrush Sales Co. 560 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1977
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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.
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In such situations the court is justified in entering summary judgment for the moving party, if the facts show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Roy Harmon et al. v. LaVerne R. Szrama et al. (1967), , ; Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. (1967)
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
Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.” (Emphasis added) Of critical importance in the present case is the rule that “ * * * mere conclusions of ultimate fact and law do not satisfy the Rule’s requirement that specific facts be set forth * * * ”
Harmon v. Szrama 441 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1968
Harmon v. Szrama 441 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by