Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides, 799 P.2d 801.

59 citing documents.

Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
(“[B]lind devotion to federal interpretation is not required; we need not follow the federal cases if we believe Arizona policy, practice, or case law requires a different result.”)
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Am., ( and Brooks v. S. Pac.
Diane Flynn Et Vir v. Sarah Campbell Ariz. 2017
Diane Flynn Et Vir v. Sarah Campbell Ariz. 2017
Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 379 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nelson v. Sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nelson v. Sentry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“Special action review is particularly appropriate where the issue of the statute of limitations has been raised and, where that claim is denied incorrectly, there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal.”)
Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc. 148 P.3d 1146 Ariz. 2006
Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc. 148 P.3d 1146 Ariz. 2006
A defendant brought in through an 5 amended complaint suffers no prejudice for purposes of Rule 15(c)(1) if served “within the time that would have been proper if [the defendant] had been correctly named in the first place.”
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“Whenever feasible our courts have looked to the origin and interpretation of federal counterparts for guidance in construing the Arizona rules.”); see also Orme Sch.
State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“[W]e need not follow *23 the federal cases if we believe Arizona policy, practice, or case law requires a different result.”).
Pargman v. Vickers 96 P.3d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pargman v. Vickers 96 P.3d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
The trial court denied the motion, holding that, , 799 P.2d *474 801 (1990), the amended complaint related back.
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
See Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides, 165 Ariz. 460, 464, (noting that statutes of limitation are aimed at protecting defendants and courts from stale claims, and at protecting defendants from prolonged economic or psychological uncertainty
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
P. 8(f) (requiring courts to liberally construe pleadings so "as to do substantial justice”)
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
( , ); -90 , -33 (2000).
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Ritchie v. Grand, Canyon Scenic Rides, , (Arizona courts are not bound by federal court decisions if “Arizona policy, practice, or case law requires a different result.”).
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
our supreme court stated: Statutes of limitations afford substantial rights to prospective defendants.
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc. 904 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
the complaint against U.S. West was timely because it was filed and served within a year of the filing of the original complaint.
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides, our supreme court construed the applicable notice period for 15(c) purposes as “the applicable statute of limitations plus the time allowed for service of process.”
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992