DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Greenwood v. Peterson, 717 P.2d 892.

18 citing documents.

  • DONOVAN v. DONOVAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “[T]o be effective[,] the donee’s exercise of the power of appointment must comply perfectly with any formal requirements imposed by the donative instrument.”
  • Thompson v. Manten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    To have standing, a party must, at a minimum, have “a legitimate interest in the outcome.”
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ez Homes v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Corp., ¶ 14 (App. 2014) ().
  • Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    which is generally a fact question, see id., requires proof of negligence in the case-within-a-case; that is, “but for the attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the original suit.” ¶ 12, (
  • Gries v. Plaza Del Rio Management Corp. 335 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Kerr v. Killian 3 P.3d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    ¶ 17 Relying on , Wetherill next asserts that Renee’s 1994 amendment did not effectively exercise the POA because the amendment failed to “comply perfectly with the requirements of the donative instrument,” the Kerns’ trust.
  • Meyer v. Mikolay 987 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶ 19 In , our supreme court established a three-part test for determining whether the donee “approximately complied” with what the donor prescribed.
  • Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Noting that standing was not a constitutional mandate in Arizona, see In re Stro-bel , 216, , 895 (1986), the court accepted the appellants’ abandonment of the standing issue and addressed the merits of the appeal.
  • Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    Chambers v. United Farm Workers Org.
  • Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Noting that standing was not a constitutional mandate in Arizona, , the court accepted the appellants’ abandonment of the standing issue and addressed the merits of the appeal.
  • Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Since standing is not a constitutional mandate in Arizona, , we accede to appellants’ abandonment of this issue and proceed to the merits.
  • In the Matter of Estate of Tovrea 845 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals 789 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1990
    State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982)
  • State v. Arizona Pension Planning 739 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1987
    It is "imposed to ensure that courts do not issue mere advisory opinions, that the case is not moot and that the issues will be fully developed by true adversaries.”
  • Matter of Strobel 717 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1986
  • Matter of Strobel 717 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1986
    In the Matter of Oscar A. STROBEL, Inter Vivos Trust.