Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 798 P.2d 374.

25 citing documents.

McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
n.5, n.5 (1990) (“Although either party to litigation in the superior court is entitled to demand a jury trial as a matter of right, whether the case falls in equity or in law, in an equity case the verdict is merely advisory.”) (internal citation omitted)
Pima County v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pima County v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
For issue preclusion to apply, the “issue or fact to be precluded must have been the same issue or fact actually litigated.” City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 165 Ariz. 236, 242
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, in any event, there is still a right to a jury trial “whether the case falls in equity or in law.” , 242 n. 5, , 380 n. 5 (1990).
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, in any event, there is still a right to a jury trial “whether the case falls in equity or in law.” n. 5, n. 5 (1990).
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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).
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
Co., , , 240 n. 2, , 378 n. 2 (1990).
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Salt River Project/Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 179 Ariz. at 282 , 877 P.2d at 1338 , , State Compensation Fund v. Nelson, 153 Ariz. at 453 , 737 P.2d at 1091 .
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Salt River Project/Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Commission 877 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Salt River Project/Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Commission 877 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The language of the statute and the act of which it is part is the primary evidence of legislative intent, e.g., id., but we also infer intent from the history of the statute and act, , and their general purpose
Parker v. Vanell 824 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1992
Parker v. Vanell 824 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1992
Today’s construction of the phrase “common liability” is not only in accordance with the rules of construction established by our legislature, but it is also consistent with this court’s