Cited by

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

263 citing documents.

Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia 377 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Garcia’s but that case, which deals with a party’s duty to request findings of fact and conclusions of law, provides no support for the proposition that a party has a duty to object to a final, appealable order in order to preserve error therein.
Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Trantor v. Fre *18 drikson, , (“[Ajbsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Owners Ass’n, n.5, ¶ 15 (App. 2016) (-01 (1994)); Summers v. Gloor, --- P.3d ---, *5 n.6, ¶ 20 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 91 (App. 2007)).
Zelkind v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Zelkind v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (“[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial offer.
Gardner v. First International Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gardner v. First International Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
299, 300, (“[Ajbsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bastian v. Endresen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(errors not raised in trial court cannot generally be asserted on appeal).
Richard G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Richard G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And “[a]lthough findings of fact and conclusions of law are certainly helpful on appellate review, they do not go to the foundation of the case or deprive a party of a fair hearing.” -01, -59 (1994); see Moreno- Medrano, 218 Ariz. at 353, ¶ 13, 185 P.3d at 139 (“After Henderson, we conclude this part of Lopez is no longer correct and find that the imposition of the fees without the finding was not fundamental error.”).
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
Vidales v. Huth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vidales v. Huth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(explaining a party need only alert the court to the lack of findings to preserve the issue).
Tumlinson v. Tumlinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tumlinson v. Tumlinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, -01 (1994) (lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law in awarding attorney's fees); Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp.
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1986)); -01, -59 (1994).
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Her failure to object to the alleged sufficiency of the findings and conclusions “precludes [her] from raising the absence of findings as error on appeal.”
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“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.”).
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Ryder v. Ryder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ryder v. Ryder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶9 P.2d 657 (1994), to support his argument that mother waived her right to appeal on this basis.
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(errors not raised in trial court cannot be asserted on appeal); (untimely to move to disqualify judge when judgment already rendered on pleadings).
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that a party must have afforded the superior court and opposing counsel the opportunity to correct any asserted defects in order to contest on appeal); (noting that a party waives on appeal any argum