Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cassandra S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 945 P.2d 312.

19 citing documents.

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
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
(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
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 court from 'decidi
Helen Yu-Wen Chang v. Siu 323 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
(parties may not raise argument for first time on appeal).
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
(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
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 not argued below s
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
(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
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
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
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
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).