Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. English, 864 P.2d 1042.

36 citing documents.

Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. English, –14 (1993) (applying the Hurles framework).
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. English, and “determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law,” ¶ 13 (App. 2017) (quoting L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Constr.
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. English, –13 (1993), and “determine de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Constr.
Calabrese v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Calabrese v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 10 (App. 2013) (citing Riley, Hoggatt & -13 (1993)).
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Riley, Hoggatt & -13 , -45 (1993).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. English, -13 , -5 (1993).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. English, -13 , -45 (1993), and will affirm the entry of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason.
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Riley, Hoggatt & -13 , -45 (1993); L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Constr.
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
v. English, , and determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court incorrectly applied the law.
Stoddard v. Donahoe 228 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Stoddard v. Donahoe 228 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Trombi v. Donahoe 222 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Trombi v. Donahoe 222 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. English, , Dunn v. Superior Court (Samaritan Health Serv.)
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. English, -14 , -46 (1993)
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Furthermore, even when viewing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as we must, Riley, Hoggatt & we determine that plaintiffs did not raise a material question of fact regarding whether the State actually received their notice of claim and that the grant of summary judgment to the State is therefore appropriate.
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Adams 931 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Adams 931 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
v. English, , -45 (1993).
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. English, -13 , -45 (1993).
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
v. English, , , see Ariz.R.Civ.P.
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. English, , (facts viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was taken).