Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Yarnell, 909 P.2d 377.

39 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
As our supreme court explained, special action review “often frustrates the expeditious resolution of claims, unnecessarily increases both appellate court caseload and interference with trial judges, harasses litigants with prolonged and costly appeals, and provides piecemeal review.” See City of Phoenix v. Yarnell (Smith)
Jennings v. Hon agne/al-furaji 520 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jennings v. Hon agne/al-furaji 520 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Miller Designs v. US Bank 418 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(court of appeals is to address only issues developed on the record, including issues of law presented on facts “put in issue by a properly focused motion”).
Claborn v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Claborn v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tucson Unified School District v. Gallagher Corum 322 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Tucson Unified School District v. Gallagher Corum 322 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
v. Reeves, questions concerning immunity are particularly appropriate for special action review, 1The parties do not dispute that Corum’s conduct constituted a felony; he pled guilty to “attempted secretly viewing or recording another person without their consent.” See A.R.S.
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
¶19 “[I]t is incorrect to direct entry of summary judgment on issues not raised by the movant in the trial court and on which the parties have therefore not had an opportunity to marshal and present evidence.” City of Phoenix v. Yarnell, 184 Ariz. 310, 320
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(supreme court considers effect of accepting review on litigation and parties).
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
interlocutory rulings “often frustrates the expeditious resolution of claims, unnecessarily increases both appellate court caseload and 4 interference with trial judges, harasses litigants with prolonged and costly appeals, and provides piecemeal review.” City of Phoenix v. Yarnell (Smith)
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
which discussed municipal liability for constitutional torts arising out of governmental policies.
Weatherford v. State 54 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Weatherford v. State 54 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
As the Arizona Supreme Court recognized in City of Phoenix v. Yamell, direct liability is available when the entity is “alleged to have caused a constitutional tort through ‘a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.’” 2 , (quoting City of St.
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(inappropriate to rule on summary judgment issues before trial court has had opportunity to rule).
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
540 , , (“[I]t is incorrect to direct entry of summary judgment on issues not raised by the movant in the trial court and on which the parties have therefore not had an opportunity to marshal and present evidence.”).
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
We generally prefer to wait until after final judgment because an interlocutory appeal “often frustrates the expeditious resolution of claims, unnecessarily increases both appellate court caseload and interference with trial judges, harasses litigants with prolonged and costly appeals, and provides piecemeal review.”
Munroe v. Galati 938 P.2d 1114 Ariz. 1997
Munroe v. Galati 938 P.2d 1114 Ariz. 1997
See City of Phoenix v. Yarnell & Smith, , Ft.
State v. Superior Court 921 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 921 P.2d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Because petitioners do not have an adequate remedy by appeal on these issues, , (immunity); , (statute of limitations), we have entered an order accepting jurisdiction over this petition, with a written decision to follow.