Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd., 246 P.3d 343.

71 citing documents.

Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lakeside v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., ¶ 16 (2011).
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., , 267 ¶ 22, see also Weatherford ex rel.
Hoag v. Hon. french/wells 357 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hoag v. Hon. french/wells 357 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
FRENCH/WELLS Opinion of the Court defendants.” Planning Group of Scottsdale, LLC v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., ¶ 14 (2011) (citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 723-24 (1877)).
Henderson v. Isaacman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Henderson v. Isaacman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Scottsdale, LLC v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd., ¶ 2, n.1, n.1 (2011).
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., (exercise of jurisdiction must comport with “‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’”), quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Scottsdale v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., ¶ 22, n.1, ¶ 1, n.1 (2003).
State v. Mitchell 323 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mitchell 323 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 22, n.1, ¶ 1, n.1 (2003).
Bill Beverage Et Ux v. Pullman & comley/morris 316 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2014
Bill Beverage Et Ux v. Pullman & comley/morris 316 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2014
P. 4.2(a) (granting extraterritorial jurisdiction “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States”), properly extrapolated from this Court’s opinion in Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd., ¶ 25, 270 ¶ 37, 351 (2011), and otherwise applied the proper tests and analyzed relevant authorities.
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
P. 4.2(a); Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., ¶ 12
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake 4 Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Reeder v. Johnson 246 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2011