Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank, 796 P.2d 881.

52 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re the Marriage of McCulloch 546 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(court has discretion to decline to find waiver when considering “issues of statewide importance” or “situations in which the public interest is better served by having the issue considered”) ( n.8 (1990)); (court has discretion to hear arguments first raised on appeal).
Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(arguments raised in summary judgment motion are preserved for review); Golonka v. Gen.
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(appellate court generally will not consider issues on appeal not argued before the trial court); –94 (App. 1997) (arguments raised for the first time in a motion for new trial are waived).
City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the Estate 431 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the Estate 431 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
of Supervisors , , 582, , 584 (1938), and our supreme court has, in its discretion, declined to find waiver when considering "issues of statewide importance, those of constitutional dimension or situations in which the public interest is better served by having the issue considered rather than deferred," Schoenfelder v. Ariz. Bank , , 90 n.8, , 892 (1990) (quoting Dombey v. Phx.
Merrick v. Escapule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Merrick v. Escapule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shoemake v. Estancia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[W]e 4 The syllabus in Ohio is part of the appellate decision, written by the authoring judge, and approved by a majority of the court.
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on 8 Although the trial court did not specifically make a finding regarding harmlessness, “we may infer additional findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the trial court’s order as long as those findings are reasonab
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that a party must have afforded the superior court and opposing counsel the opportunity to correct any asserted defects in order to contest on appeal); (noting that a party waives on appeal any argument not properly presented in the superior court); Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., -10, ¶ 17, -39 (App. 2007) (party waives argument raised for first time on appeal when the superior cou
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 29 , (finding party waived issue of mandatory attorneys’ fees by failing to assert statutory basis for award before the trial court); , (“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on appeal that was not argued or factually established in the trial court.”).
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“On appeal from summary judgment, we will not consider new factual theories raised in an attempt to secure reversal of the trial court’s determinations of law.”); Rand v. Porsche Fin.
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
88 n. 7, , 890 n. 7 (1990); , 168 n. 2, , 1159 n. 2 (1978).
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
and the clerk of the court enters the judgment”); vacated in part on other grounds, P.2d 881 (1990); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on appeal that was not argued or factually established in the trial court.”) (citations omitted); Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 99 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 99 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on appeal that was not argued or factually established in the trial court.”); see also Hanrahan v. Sims, 20 Ariz.App.
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(on appeal from summary judgment, we will not consider new factual theories raised in attempt to secure reversal of trial court’s determinations of law).
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(as a general rule, appellate courts will not review an issue on appeal that party did not raise and argue in trial court).
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
90 & n. 8, , 892 & n. 8 (1990).
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Gau v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 901 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gau v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 901 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Crye v. Edwards 873 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crye v. Edwards 873 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
13(a); , Stewart v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
796 P.2d *519 881, 890 (1990).
In the Matter of Estates of Spear 845 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In the Matter of Estates of Spear 845 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Jennings v. Roberts Scott & Co., , Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass’n for the Retarded and Handicapped