Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark, 759 P.2d 607.

25 citing documents.

BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
v. Clark, (“Arizona courts may not take ‘judicial notice’ of the truth of an evidentiary record in another action tried in the same court.”).
S&S Paving v. Berkley 372 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
S&S Paving v. Berkley 372 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Clark, (claim barred if no action initiated within six months of recording); MLM Constr.
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys., -70 , -16 (1988).
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys., (“[T]he preclusive effect of a judgment is limited to parties and persons in privity with parties.”); see also Daystar Invs.
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys.
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
PFS v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 955 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Meml Health Sys.
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hunnicutt Construction, Inc. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496 928 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
See Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“In general, a person who is not a party to an action is not bound by the result.” Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, , , (damages and liability may be litigated in contribution action).
Matter of Horwitz 881 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Horwitz 881 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1994
v. Clark, , (permissible to take judicial notice of record in previous case if party was joined in the action); , 580 n. 4, , 111 n. 4 (1983) (court may take judicial notice that bar applicant filed certain actions in federal court).
Hatch Companies Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Bank 826 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hatch Companies Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Bank 826 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In fact, in Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, , in which a mechanics' lien claimant foreclosed his lien on the property and obtained a judgment, but had failed to file a lis pendens, he was unable to satisfy the judgment out of a sale of the property because the property had been purchased during the pendency of the litigation by a third pers
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 791 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 791 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The substantive issue was resolved by the supreme court in Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, , and the case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether attorney’s fees should be awarded to the prevailing party, Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems.
B & M Construction, Inc. v. Mueller 790 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
B & M Construction, Inc. v. Mueller 790 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, , vacated on other grounds