DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY., 855 P.2d 1357.

73 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., ).
  • Loiselle v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Supervisors, (citation omitted).
  • Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty.
  • Davis v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Supervisors, (“[W]hen a trial court in a non-jury case fails to make or makes insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, a reviewing court should remand 3 DAVIS, et al. v. STATE Decision of the Court the case to th
  • Griebel v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Griebel v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (citation omitted).
  • Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Jaen v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., ().
  • Jaen v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., –300 (1993) (explaining that the superior court’s findings must state “at least ‘the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.’”) (citation omitted).
  • Atkison v. Shafer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (declining to adjudicate an issue on appeal unaddressed in the superior court’s findings because a “final decision without findings was impossible without transforming this court into a factfinder resolving disputed issues of fact”); see also Troutman v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (App.
  • Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Duncan v. Public Storage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (declining to adjudicate the issue on appeal not addressed in the superior court findings because a “final decision without findings was impossible without transforming this court into a factfinder resolving disputed issues of fact”); Aida Rental Tr.
  • Andrea F., Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Stephens v. Jago Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Stephens v. Jago Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (quoting United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199 (1964)).
  • Kristi C. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Bowles v. Trznadel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Bowles v. Trznadel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    of Sup’rs of Pinal Cty., (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Arizona Bailman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Miller v. Board of Sup’rs of Pinal County, ().
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cty., (citing Star Realty Co. v. Sellers, 73 N.M.
  • Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    of Sup’rs of Pinal County
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    of Supervisors, (“A trial court’s findings of fact satisfy Arizona law if they are ‘pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.’”).
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Toth v. Brower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cty., (“Where possible, when a trial court in a non-jury case fails to make or makes insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, a reviewing court should remand the case to the trial court for further findings.”).
  • Stein v. Stein 363 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Supervisors, (quoting Urban Dev.
  • Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (noting findings of fact required under Rule 52(a) must be sufficiently specific and address all pertinent issues).
  • Security v. Reyelts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Supervisors of Pinal County, (findings are adequate "if they are sufficiently specific to allow an appellate court to test the validity of the judgment") (quotation omitted).
  • Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eastman v. Eastman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (explaining that sufficient factual findings contain “the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached”).
  • Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., ).
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (citing United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199 (1964)) (internal quotations omitted).
  • Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Supervisors of Pinal County, (“The reviewing court needs a sufficient factual basis that explains how the trial court actually arrived at its conclusion.”).
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., (noting that sufficient factual findings require the court to articulate “the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
  • Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Supervisors, (citations omitted).