Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 904 P.2d 861.

76 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
See Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
See Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995) (“We do not ordinarily consider issues not raised in the trial court or court of appeals.”).
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995).
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995); see also Liristis v. Am.
State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
“Although we do not ordinarily consider issues not raised in the trial court or court of appeals, if good reason exists, this court may and will entertain such questions as the rule is jurisprudential rather than substantive.” –4 ¶ 10 (2018) (quoting Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995)).
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995).
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
See Marianne N. v. Dep't of Child Safety , , 56 ¶ 13, , 1005 (2017) ; Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , , 406 n.9, , 868 (1995).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , , 406 n.9, , 868 n.9 (1995).
Pearce v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Pearce v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2001) (finding that a failure to raise an issue with the trial court waives the issue on appeal); Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9 (1995) (noting a “rare exception” to the waiver rule 2 See, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (citing Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc., n.7 (App. 2007)).
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
The general principle that this court will not consider an issue not raised below is jurisprudential, not substantive, Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., n.9, n.9 (1995); further, in our discretion, we may consider constitutional arguments not properly raised before the trial court
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
th Partners of S. Ariz., -35, ¶ 32, –68 (App. 1998) (finding the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act did not unconstitutionally abrogate an action to recover damages for injuries); ¶ 34, (“We have held that article 18, § 6 precludes abrogation, but not regulation.”); Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (“We long ago held that our constitution permits regulations effectively reducing a plaintiff’s recovery.”).
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Bondwriter Southwest, Inc. 263 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Bondwriter Southwest, Inc. 263 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Furthermore, our supreme court has recognized that “the general goal of the present version of UCATA is to make each tortfeasor responsible for only its share of fault.” Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., , (emphasis added) (emphasis in original omitted).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 12 , (citing Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , Gosewisch v. Am.
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
may be raised and addressed for the first time on appeal, particularly when, as here, the issue is of statewide importance, is raised in the context of a fully developed record, does not turn on resolution of disputed facts, and has been fully briefed by the parties.” ¶ 12 , (citing Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , Gosewisch v. Am.
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Gosewisch, 153 Ariz. at 403 , 737 P.2d at 379 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., , Golonka v. Gen.
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , (stating that strict products liability is established by proof that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control, that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries); O.S.
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶12 When a statute “does not abrogate any viable ‘right of action to recover damages,’ it does not violate article 18, § 6.” Ramirez, 972 P.2d at 667- 68; (“We have held that article 18, § 6 precludes abrogation, but not regulation.”); Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (“We long ago held that our constitution permits regulations effectively reducing a plaintiff’s recovery.”); cf. Little v. All Phoenix S. Cmty.
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
"When good reason exists, this court may and will entertain such questions.” Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , 406 n. 9
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See also Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , 406 n. 9, , 868 n. 9 (1995) (constitutional issues advanced in neither trial court nor court of appeals were reached).
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (prima facie case of strict product liability against manufacturer includes proof that product defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left manufacturer’s control); (same); Piper v. Bear Med.
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C. 63 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , 406-07 n. 9, , 868-69 n. 9 (1995).
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
West v. State 58 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
ires th[at] conclusion”); Gibbs v. O’Malley Lumber Co., , (because case’s holding was clear and direct, “if legislature had ever intended to change either [the statute] or the supreme court’s interpretation of that statute, it would have done so explicitly, not by implication”), disapproved of on other grounds in Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., , (citations omitted).
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999