Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951.

129 citing documents.

Little v. State 240 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Little v. State 240 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The relevant inquiry is when did a plaintiffs “ ‘knowledge, understanding, and acceptance in the aggregate provide[ ] sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.’”
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Under the discovery rule, “[a] plaintiff need *182 not know all the facts underlying a cause of action to trigger accrual[,][b]ut the plaintiff must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 32 , (citation omitted).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Under this rule, the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff possesses a minimum knowledge sufficient to recognize that “a wrong occurred and caused injury.” ¶ 22 , ( ¶ 32 , ).
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dube v. Likins Powell Hixon Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Dube v. Likins Powell Hixon Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
And “[w]hen discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.”
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
§ 12-821.01 should be interpreted to attribute to Long knowledge that reasonable inquiry on his part would have disclosed, “[w]hen discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.” ¶ 32 , (citing Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins.
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
at 591, 898 P.2d at 969.3 ¶22 P.2d 951 (1998).
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The limitations period under § 12-542 “begins to run upon accrual,” , which requires not only an alleged “wrong” but also injury.
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. 7 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Stoecker v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 984 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1999
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by