Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino, 945 P.2d 312.

50 citing documents.

Koizumi v. Morogiello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Vizcaino, (parties may not raise arguments for the first time on appeal).
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Vizcaino, Ariz. R. Fam.
Funding Metrics v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Funding Metrics v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(citing Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
v. Vizcaino, –5 (1997) (disqualifying petition signatures gathered by referendum circulators who were not qualified electors); Perini Land & Dev.
Magnotta v. Serra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Magnotta v. Serra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Vizcaino, (citations omitted).
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Vizcaino , , 5, , 316 (1997) ).
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Vizcaino, (“[T]hese challenges were not properly raised below and thus we do not consider them here.”); Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(declining to consider constitutional claims not first made to the trial court); n.5, ¶ 14, n.5 (App. 2007) (generally, issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived).
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Vizcai-no, , (stating parties may not raise arguments for the first time on appeal); ¶ 6 , (explaining that this rule serves "to avoid surprising the parties by 'deciding their case on an issue they did not present’ and to prevent the
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, , Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, , Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(parties may not raise argument for first time on appeal).
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(parties may not raise argument for first time on appeal).
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
v. Vizcaino, (declining to hear constitutional challenges to residency requirement not raised below, although appellant urged consideration of issue under Dombey); n.1, n.1 (1988) (appellate court’s discretion to hear constitutional arguments
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Marsh 130 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(parties may not raise arguments for the first time on appeal).
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
v. Vizcaino, -4, -15 (1997) (analyzing sufficiency of evidence to overcome presumption).
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. 88 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Kocher v. Department of Revenue 80 P.3d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Kocher v. Department of Revenue 80 P.3d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
The “ ‘intentions of a person are to be judged not only by his statements but also upon his conduct and the surrounding circumstances.’ ” , (quoting O’ , ).
John L Powers v. John M Carpenter Ariz. 2002
§ 16- 121.01(B) (1996) P.2d 312 (1997).
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“We can think of no better way to preserve the integrity of the referendum process as it relates to local ordinances than to require that only those eligible to vote for the members of the body which passed the ordinance be able to engage in the ‘core political speech’ of attempting to gather signatures to challenge the ordinance.” , (quoting Browne v. Russell, 27 Cal.
Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
e law requirement, noting that such constraints “preserve the integrity of the referendum process as it relates to local ordinances” by requiring that “only those eligible to vote for the members of the body which passed the ordinance be able to engage in the ‘core political speech’ of attempting to gather signatures to challenge the ordinance.” , (citations omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by