DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bonner v. Minico, Inc., 766 P.2d 598.

28 citing documents.

  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    We will not set aside any findings of fact made by the trial court in reaching its jurisdiction determination unless clearly erroneous, see Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -56, -06 (1988); see also Bushelman v. Bushelman, 246 Wis.2d 317 , 629 N.W.2d 795, 803 (Wis.
  • Gnatkiv v. Machkur 372 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Gnatkiv v. Machkur 372 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -54 , -06 (1988).
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Lee v. State 242 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 5 The supreme court expressly declined to decide, however, whether resolution of this factual issue was one for the trial court as a disputed issue of fact not going to the merits of the case, see Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , or was reserved for the jury, , as an affirmative defense.
  • Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (principles of summary judgment apply to factual issues affecting jurisdiction).
  • Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
  • Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
    Compare Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (noting that the trial court may resolve ''jurisdictional issues, including those which involve disputed issues of fact” which do not go to the merits of the case), *239 433 , (concluding that compliance with former vers
  • Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 7 , (evidence of party opposing summary judgment is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn it its favor; appellate review is de novo); Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (principles of summary judgment apply to factual issues affecting jurisdiction); ¶ 8 , (court’s consideration of matters outside of complaint converts motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment).
  • Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    See Bonner v. Minico, Inc., P.2d 598 (1988); P.2d 647 (1967); State ex rel.
  • Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    2 This is not a case in which “the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues,” and, therefore, there is no need for a trier to “determine[] the facts [before] the court then determines whether those facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Chamberlain, 151 Ariz. at 554, 729 P.2d at 908; see also Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -54, -06 (1988)
  • Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    see also Bonner v. Minico, Inc., 159 Ariz. 246, 256
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
    In the civil arena, we addressed the issue in Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -54 , -06 (1988), and followed the approach of the United States Supreme Court in Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 , 67 S.Ct.
  • Bils v. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle 880 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • Bils v. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle 880 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
    1209 (1947); Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (trial court may resolve traditional jurisdictional issues including disputed issues of fact but parties retain right to jury trial on merits).
  • Dunn v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 839 Ariz. 1991
  • Dunn v. Industrial Commission 831 P.2d 839 Ariz. 1991
    § 23-1022(A); Bonner v. Minico, Inc.
  • Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Bonner v. Minico, Inc., -54 , -06 (1988)
  • Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
  • Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
    DISCUSSION Plaintiff, relying on our decision in Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , first argues that whether his failure to file a timely claim is due to excusable neglect or incompetence should be a matter for a jury and not a judge.