Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dressler v. Morrison, 130 P.3d 978.

111 citing documents.

Wright v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 25-318(D) does not challenge the finality of the dissolution decree as a whole or the denial of her Rule 85 motion, ¶ 16
Dodge v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Dodge v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chandler v. Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11, City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5
Chandler v. Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 ¶ 2, in Coleman, our supreme court re-examined Dressler and clarified that the standard of review of a Rule 12(b) dismissal is de novo.
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶23 Under the res judicata doctrine, “a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same claim.” ¶ 15
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A-Plan v. Quarles & Brady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 297 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc.
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 293-94, ¶ 14 , 205 P.3d at 1140 -41 ( ¶ 16 , ).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
¶ 11, the Court stated that an order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC 276 P.3d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Castle v. Barrett-Jackson Auction Co., LLC 276 P.3d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 261 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 261 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
DISCUSSION ¶ 10 "We review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion," ¶ 11 , and apply a similar standard to an order denying an injunction.
Turner v. City of Flagstaff 247 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Turner v. City of Flagstaff 247 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
2 DISCUSSION ¶ 5 “We review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 11
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc. 223 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2010
Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc. 223 P.3d 664 Ariz. 2010
¶ 11, (applying de novo review to legal issues underlying dismissal of complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)).
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 14 , lor the proposition that A.R.S.
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In any event, we agree that res judicata is inapplicable here because the dismissal of the Beltrans’ claim in tribal court did not constitute a judgment “on the merits.” (res judicata not applicable when claim dismissed in first action for failure to join a party); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20 (1980) (same).
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007