Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bledsoe v. Goodfarb, 823 P.2d 1264.

31 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
n.1 (1991) (“[R]elief formerly obtained by writs of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari is now obtained by ‘special action.’”).
AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Instead, “[a]ppeal after final judgment is generally the proper remedy for trial court errors in granting motions for summary judgment.”
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District v. Robertson 123 P.3d 1122 Ariz. 2005
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District v. Robertson 123 P.3d 1122 Ariz. 2005
1(a), 4(a); (granting special action relief when legal issue affected water organizations statewide).
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“The legislative history of Arizona’s recreational use statute indicates that the act ‘was designed to encourage landowners to open certain lands to recreational users by limiting liability for injuries to those users.’ ” Smith
Smith v. Arizona Board of Regents 986 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Smith v. Arizona Board of Regents 986 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 10 The legislative history of Arizona’s recreational use statute indicates that the act “was designed to encourage landowners to open certain lands to recreational users by limiting liability for injuries to those users.”
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
See Munroe, 189 Ariz. at 115 , 938 P.2d at 1116
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
See Munroe, 189 Ariz. at 115 , 938 P.2d at 1116
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Superior Court 907 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Superior Court 907 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc. 877 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc. 877 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
14, 1983) (remarks made by Representative Jim Ratliff, sponsor of the bill); n. 2 , n. 2 (1991).
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(the intent and viability of the Salladay doctrine and the interpretation of the recreational use statute have statewide significance).
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
The issues presented have statewide importance, , are pure questions of law, State Comp.
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993