Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Harris v. Purcell, 973 P.2d 1166.

36 citing documents.

Carretero v. Carretero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Carretero v. Carretero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 16 (1998) (“[E]ven a finding of unreasonable delay is not enough; it must also be established that the delay resulted in actual prejudice.”).
Lehman v. Washburn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lehman v. Washburn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sw Fabrication v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sw Fabrication v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kasson v. Burgener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kasson v. Burgener Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶15 “Laches is the equitable counterpart of a statute of limitations.” n.2, ¶ 2 (1998).
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶23 To determine whether the delay was unreasonable, courts must “examine the justification for delay, including the extent of plaintiff’s advance knowledge of the basis for challenge.”
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 23 To determine whether the delay was unreasonable, courts must “examine the justification for delay, including the extent of plaintiffs advance knowledge of the basis for challenge.”
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
We determine whether a delay is unreasonable by examining “the justification for delay, including the extent of plaintiff’s advance knowledge of the basis for challenge.”
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶15 Because of these underlying policies, “once initiative petitions are circulated, signed and filed, they are presumed valid.”
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite 296 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite 296 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 13 The defense of laches bars a claim when, under the totality of circumstances, the delay in prosecuting the claim “would produce an unjust result.” , 410 n. 2, ¶ 2, , 1167 n. 2 (1998).
McLaughlin v. Bennett 238 P.3d 619 Ariz. 2010
McLaughlin v. Bennett 238 P.3d 619 Ariz. 2010
I. Laches ¶ 5 “In election matters, time is of the essence because disputes concerning election and petition issues must be initiated and resolved, allowing time for the preparation and printing of [publicity pamphlets and] absentee voting ballots.” , 412 ¶ 15
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
412-13 ¶ 17, -70 (1998) (noting that “[t]o wait until the last moment [to challenge an election matter] places the court in a position of having to steamroll through the delicate legal issues in order to meet the deadline for measures to be placed on the ballot”) (alterations in original).
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(two-month delay barred claims because litigants in election cases must pursue such cases with all deliberate speed to preserve quality of judicial decision making); ¶¶ 17-18, -70 (1998) (finding unreasonable six-week delay even though claim filed within statutory limitations period); P.2d 81 (1993) (finding laches applied where plaintiff delayed more than one year after petitions circulated and claims litigated twenty
Lubin v. Thomas 144 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2006
Lubin v. Thomas 144 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2006
¶ 15, Mathieu v. Mahoney, 174 Ariz. 456, 458-59, -84 (1993)
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Sotomayor v. Burns 13 P.3d 1198 Ariz. 2000
Citizens for Growth Management v. Groscost 13 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2000
Sotomayor v. Burns 13 P.3d 1198 Ariz. 2000
Mathieu v. Mahoney, 174 Adz.
Citizens for Growth Management v. Groscost 13 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2000