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).