DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Florez v. Sargeant, 917 P.2d 250.

122 citing documents.

  • Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (expert “affidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment”).
  • Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (although headings are not part of a law, they are helpful in resolving ambiguities); Arizona Foundation for Neurology and Psychiatry v. Sienerth, 13 Ariz.App.
  • Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
  • Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
  • Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
  • Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
    Finally, , Plaintiffs claim for tolling the statute of limitations due to the disability of unsound mind failed because she was able to manage her daily affairs.
  • Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    After the Plaintiffs filed this appeal
  • Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    “[Sjtatutes of limitations are designed to encourage plaintiffs to pursue claims diligently and to prevent the assertion of stale and fraudulent claims.”
  • Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Cf., , (Expert affidavits of psychologists which were submitted by individuals who alleged they had been sexually and physically abused several years prior to bringing their complaint were conclusory and did not set forth specific facts to support the psychologists’ opinions.).
  • Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    that court held that the disabling psychological effects of child abuse do not constitute an “unsound mind” under section 12-502(A) where the victims were able to function on a day-to-day basis and manage their ordinary affairs.
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996