Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Snyder v. Tucson Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board, 17 P.3d 790.

39 citing documents.

Abrego v. econ/zurich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Corp., ¶ 14 (App. 2000).
DOUGLAS v. LESSARD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Tanner v. Clymer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Corp., (“When the party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce sufficient competent evidence to show that an issue exists.”).
Parr v. united/valeey Forge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Garza v. Collinsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 13 GARZA v. COLLINSWORTH Decision of the Court 2000) (as amended).
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Corp., ¶ 14 (App. 2000).
U. S. Bank v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Corp., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must identify specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial).
Duffy v. Pearson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Corp., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must identify specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial) (citation omitted).
Montemurro v. Montemurro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (pro se litigants are “held to the same standards expected of a lawyer”).
Oliveira v. Oliveira Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Spector v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., (“[I]t became the Kellys’ burden to stay apprised of the new sale dates.
English, III v. Gantz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (“[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer.”).
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000); (persons representing themselves are “held to the same familiarity with required procedures” as an attorney).
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Castillo v. barlow/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., ¶ 14 (App. 2000) (citation omitted); (“Once the defendant has established a prima facie case entitling him to summary judgment, the plaintiff has the burden of showing available, competent evidence that would justify a trial.” (citation omitted)).
Greenberg v. McGowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp., (citation omitted); accord Ariz. R. Civ.
Sheridan v. Swartz & Brough Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp., ¶ 15 (App. 2000); accord Ariz. R. Civ.
Lovett v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp., ¶¶ 24–25 (App. 2000), as amended, (Mar.
Kitchen v. Fleming, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Lynaugh v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Corp., ¶ 25 (App. 2000) (“The initial notice of the trustee’s sale .
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Corp., ¶ 25 (App. 2000).
State v. Petramala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Corp., ¶ 16, (noting that it is well-established that a party who conducts a case without a lawyer is held to the standards expected of a lawyer).
Hawkins v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
Whitmore v. Union Pacific Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (“[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney … is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer.”).
Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000).
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jaffe v. Capital One Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Branigan v. Fredrickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Klee v. Lunn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Corp., ¶ 14 , (“When the party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce sufficient competent evidence to show that an issue exists.”).
Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co. of Ariz., ¶ 28 , (denying request for fees on appeal for failure to provide supporting authority); , 289, ¶ 26, , 795 (App.2000) (same); , 341, ¶21, , 75 (App. 1998) (same).
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
289, ¶26, , 795 (App. 2001).