Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Andrews v. Blake, 69 P.3d 7.

423 citing documents.

Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
“Thus, summary judgment in favor of either party is appropriate only ‘if the facts produced in support of the [other party’s] claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” ¶ 13, (quoting Orme School, 166 Ariz. at 309, 802 P.2d at 1008) (alteration in original).
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 111 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 111 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
§ 28-701(B), which prescribes certain speeds that, if exceeded, constitute “prima facie evidence” of unreasonable speed, is “rule[] of evidence and not rule[] of substantive law” and merely “raise[s] rebuttable presumptions, which may be overcome by evidence”); n.3, -14 n.3 (2003) (presumption that properly mailed and addressed letter will reach addressee would have been rebutted by denial of receipt in purchase option case).
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Lamb Excavation v. Torrejon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Lamb Excavation v. Torrejon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc., P.3d 687 (App. 2000) (entry of summary judgment reviewed de novo); P.3d 7 (2003) (availability and propriety of equ itable relief reviewed de novo).
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co. of Ariz., ¶ 10 , ¶ 12 , Tenet HealthSys.
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“We review de novo a grant of summary judgment .