Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041.

32 citing documents.

Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plaintiffs rely on Pointe Resorts, claiming the City’s charter allows other methods of contracting.
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
To argue that the claims are not moot, Potter asserts that “a defendant cannot by its own voluntary conduct ‘moot’ a case.” See Pointe Resorts
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Pointe Resorts, (“[U]sually a defendant cannot by its own voluntary conduct ‘moot’ a case and deprive a court of jurisdiction.”) But that is not what happened here.
Javier Aguila v. Doug ducey/adhs/dllc Ariz. 2021
Javier Aguila v. Doug ducey/adhs/dllc Ariz. 2021
Pointe Resorts, – 41 (1988).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See Pointe Resorts, -41 , -45 (1988) (under mootness doctrine, court should not address issues that no longer exist because of change in factual circumstances).
Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
could have the claim[] extinguished by the very persons who did the unlawful acts.” ¶20 “[I]n general, a party ‘cannot by its own voluntary conduct “moot” a case and deprive a court of jurisdiction.’” Tom Mulcaire Contracting, quoting Pointe Resorts
Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 4, (fully executed contract that was sought to be enjoined renders challenge to denial of injunctive relief moot based on changed circumstances); but see Pointe Resorts, - 41, -45 (1988) (based on “policy considerations,” summarily determining that appellees’ completion, during pendency of appeal, of actions sought to be enjoined did not moot appeal).
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood 260 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood 260 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In making these findings, the court relied on Arizona case law that holds, in general, a party “cannot by its own voluntary conduct ‘moot’ a case and deprive a court of jurisdiction.” Pointe Resorts, , Ball v. City of Chandler Improvement Dist.
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
§ 16-672; Pointe Resorts, -44, -48 (1988).
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
¶26 We confronted a similar issue in Pointe Resorts
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, e.g., Pointe Resorts, -41 , -45 (1988) (“Generally the mootness doctrine requires that judicial opinions not be rendered concerning issues which no longer exist because of changes in the factual circumstances.”).
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
As this Court noted in a similar situation, “[t]he challengers placed themselves at risk by not filing their challenge to the [county recorder’s certification] within the ten days provided by statute.” Pointe Resorts
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 29 Johnson argues that Barron Collier is archaic law and has been substantially limited by Pointe Resorts
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Moreover, Appellant’s reliance on Pointe Resorts, , is misplaced.
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Cf. Pointe Resorts, , (“The critical factual determination ...
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko cites no language from § 19-122(C) in support of his position, but instead relies heavily upon our decision in Pointe Resorts

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by