DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinedo v. Arizona Dept of Transportation, 38 P.3d 12.

71 citing documents.

  • Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002); Strojnik v. Gen.
  • Gipson v. Kasey 150 P.3d 228 Ariz. 2007
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 483-84 ¶ 20, , 21-22 (2002).
  • Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
    ¶15 “Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 14, (citing Ariz. R. Civ.
  • United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    E.g., Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, -91, ¶¶ 59-60 , , 28-29 (2002); -54 , -70 (1986); Enyart v. Transamerica Ins.
  • Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 123 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    Otherwise, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in favor of the party opposing the motion, see Wells Fargo Bank 10 v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, and credibility determinations are inappropriate for summary judgment.
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust, ¶ 74
  • American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
    ¶ 14 (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, n.24, ¶ 98, n.24 (2002)).
  • Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶¶ 13-14 , , 20 (2002); Orme Sch.
  • Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    See Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , , ¶ 59 (2002).
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    The Tort of Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations ¶ 14 As described in Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 74 , , 31 (2002), the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations has five elements: A prima facie case of intentional interference requires: (1) existence of a valid contractual relationship, (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the interferor, (3) intentional interference inducing o
  • Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    “Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 , , 20 (2002) (citations omitted).
  • American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 98, n. 24, n. 24 (2002) (citations omitted) (fraudulent *469 concealment); 5 -28 , -77 (1949) (constructive fraud); , (undue influence).
  • Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d 435 Ariz. 2003
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13
  • Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 11 In support of his claim that federal regulations should be included under the umbrella of public policy, Galati cites Wagenseller, , ; , , depublished
  • Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
  • Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. -5- 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶13
  • Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Our jurisprudence also expressly recognizes giving consideration to “the predictability that an orderly commerce requires.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 66 , , 30 (2002) (quoting Southwest Sav.
  • Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 59 P.3d 281 Ariz. 2002
    Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 482 ¶ 13, , 20 ¶ 13 (2002).
  • Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    breach its duty of good faith without actually breaching an express covenant in the contract.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 64 , , 29 (2002) (citations omitted).
  • Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    “[Ijmplied terms are as much of a contract as are the express terms.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, , 490 ¶ 59, , 28 (2002).