Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA, 892 P.2d 1354.

53 citing documents.

Brownco v. Schilk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Brownco v. Schilk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(noting the non-moving party must make a prima facie jurisdictional showing); -12 (App. 1988).
Danko v. Ameika Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Danko v. Ameika Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See A. Uberti & –67, 569 (1995); Ariz. Tile, ¶ 8 (App. 2010).
Gerdes v. the Chevy Store Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gerdes v. the Chevy Store Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
B of a v. Cheek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B of a v. Cheek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yslas v. Sms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Woyton v. Ward, 4 YSLAS v. SMS Decision of the Court see also A. Uberti & (stating that evidentiary and foundational objections to sufficiency of supporting documents attached to summary judgment pleadings are necessary to allow offering party an opportunity to cure defects and that objections to evidence must be raised at trial court to be considered on review).
Arab v. Sarkis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Arab v. Sarkis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To meet this burden, the plaintiff may not “rest on the bare allegations” of the complaint, but must “come forward with facts supporting personal jurisdiction.” Id.; see also A. Uberti &
state/ador v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
state/ador v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See A. Uberti & (deeming waived evidentiary objections not raised in summary judgment proceedings) (citing Ancell, 166 Ariz. at 460, and then Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks, 25 F.3d 610, 611 n.2 (8th Cir. 1994)); Mohave Elec.
Henderson v. Isaacman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Henderson v. Isaacman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Accordingly, the jurisdictional issue “hinges on federal law.” A. Uberti &
Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. 326 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC 306 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 246 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2011
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 246 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2011
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“We review de novo a dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction and ‘simply look to the non-moving party to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.’ ” A. Uberti & , quoting Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir.1994); see also Macpherson, 158 Ariz. at 312 , 762 P.2d at 599 (“The plaintiff may meet his burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion by a prima facie showing that jurisdiction was conferred by s
Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
ar to have been generated long after the declarations were filed, and the filed signature pages did not match those of the original declarations.” (“[d]eficiencies in supporting documents attached to summary judgment pleadings can be waived” by failure to move to strike or object); see also A. Uberti & (evidentiary objections to affidavits filed in summary judgment proceeding waived on appeal when not made to trial court).
Bentley v. Zensano, Inc. 127 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bentley v. Zensano, Inc. 127 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting 125 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting 125 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
A. Uberti & 569 , 1358 (1995).
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
Andrews v. Blake 69 P.3d 7 Ariz. 2003
See A. Uberti & (evidentiary objections to affidavits must be made in trial court to preserve issue for appeal).
Bils v. Bils 22 P.3d 38 Ariz. 2001
Cohen v. Barnard, Vogler & Co. 13 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Cohen v. Barnard, Vogler & Co. 13 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 13 P.3d 280 Ariz. 2000
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 13 P.3d 280 Ariz. 2000
Rollin v. William v. Frankel & Co., Inc. 996 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Rollin v. William v. Frankel & Co., Inc. 996 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 990 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Williams v. Lakeview Co. 990 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
DISCUSSION Personal Jurisdiction ¶ 7 We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, , accepting as true all material facts alleged by the non-movant.