Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Trantor v. Fredrikson, 878 P.2d 657.

263 citing documents.

SHUMATE v. DAVIS/BROADBENT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§ 12-349 precludes that party from raising the absence of findings as error on appeal.”
Fisher v. Finch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 11 (App. 2012) (rejecting challenge to fees awarded under ARPOP 39’s predecessor because challenge was not raised in superior court); (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).3 ¶18 Fisher argues that allowing the fee a
Linscott v. Heshion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Linscott v. Heshion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Kamma v. Gaun Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kamma v. Gaun Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶7 While the general rule is that an issue not raised before the trial court is waived on appeal, see, “neither Trantor nor its progeny has created an unalterable rule of waiver,” ¶ 16 (App. 2009); (noting waiver rule “is procedural, not jurisdictional”).
Ford v. Erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ford v. Erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to do so constitutes waiver.” Id.
Tamara Camila Rivero Quinteros v. Anthony Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Tamara Camila Rivero Quinteros v. Anthony Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(“[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
Contreras v. Bourke Ariz. 2025
(stating errors not raised in trial court cannot be asserted on appeal).
Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(“errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal” because court “should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal”).
Harvey v. Borbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Harvey v. Borbon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
to secure legal counsel.” (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Van Camp v. Van Camp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Abdulhussain v. Mv Public Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Abdulhussain v. Mv Public Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”); (“It is hig
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
7 (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
State Guardiola v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State Guardiola v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“[T]he failure of a party to object to the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law in making awards of attorneys’ fees under .
Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Yam Capital v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Because a trial court .
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pulkrabek v. Pulkrabeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pulkrabek v. Pulkrabeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”) (citations omitted).
Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”
State v. On-Auk-Mor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. On-Auk-Mor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(holding the court cannot consider issues raised for the first time on appeal); ¶ 15 (App. 1998) (holding an issue raised for the first time in the reply brief is waived); ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (“A party who fails to respond to
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
of Supervisors of Pima Cnty., ); (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.” (citing Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Valente v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Valente v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(holding that “absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal”); –03, ¶ 17 (App. 2010) (holding that to show prejudice warranting reversal, a party must make an offer of proof stating with reasonable specificity what
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
The purpose of the waiver rule is to afford the trial court and the opposing party “the opportunity to correct any asserted defects.”
Mindiola v. Mindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mindiola v. Mindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021