Short v. Petty/Beeson, 153 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Short v. Petty/Beeson, 153 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …he decision of appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts. at p. 377 ⚠ not in text
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Virgin Islands Taxi Ass'n v. Virgin Islands Port Authority (virginislands, 2017-07-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Virgin Islands Taxi Ass'n v. Virgin Islands Port Authority (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
virginislands · 2017 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
he decision of appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council, 214 Ariz. 353, ¶ 17 , 153 P.3d 374, 377-78 (App.2007) (“law of the case” rule applies when “the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested”). ¶ 17 The Gallaghers also attempt to rally evidence to demonstrate that Armijo, the principal who hired Corum, did not contact Corum’s previous employer in violation of A.R.S. § 15-512. 3 In particular, they point to the lack of any documentation from Carondelet indicating it had received a call from Armijo.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (5×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty. Servs., 148 Aiz. 1, 6, 712 P.2d 914, 919 (1985) (noting that representational standing may be based on members of the organization having “standing to sue in their own right”); Center Bay Gardens v. City of Tempe, 214 Aiz. 353, 356, ¶ 15, 153 P.3d 374, 377 (App.2007) (“Unless there are fact issues that require resolution, whether a party has standing to sue is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council, 214 Ariz. 353, 356, ¶ 17 , 153 P.3d 374, 377 (App.2007); Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, 177 Ariz. 322, 327 , 868 P.2d 335, 340 (App.1993). ¶ 39 The original costs award pertained to a summary judgment we subsequently reversed.
cited Cited "see" Lattimer v. Brisbon
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council, 214 Ariz. 353 , 356, ¶ 15 (App. 2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leanne SHORT et vir
v.
PETTY/BEESON
No. CV-06-0297-PR.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Mar 13, 2007.
153 P.3d 374
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of The Virgin Is… (1)

ORDERED: Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Petition for Review = DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED: The Court of Appeals’ Opinion shall not be published, pursuant to Rule 111(g), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.