Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cardoso v. Soldogreen2 sentences2025Even assuming we were to find error with the superior court’s dismissal of Dragoons’ complaint, it would have no effect because the superior court cannot award Dragoons the specific performance it seeks. ¶12 We may exercise discretion and consider an appeal that has become moot when it presents an issue “of great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 5 (App. 2012). 2024See id. at 617, ¶¶ 5-7 (recognizing exceptions to mootness when there is “an issue of great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review”). | 4 | 4 |
CONTEMPO-TEMPE MOBILE HOME OWNERS v. Steinertgreen2 sentences2017See Steinert, 144 Ariz. at 230. ¶9 Because this court has “the authority and often the duty to dismiss a moot case on its own initiative,” we dismiss the appeal. 2014See, e.g., Contempo-Tempe, 144 Ariz. at 230 , 696 P.2d at 1379 . | 3 | 3 |
Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedonagreen2 sentences2026Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126 , 127 ¶ 5 (App. 1998)). ¶21 The court’s application of the mootness doctrine is discretionary, and the court may address moot issues under certain circumstances. 2025Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126 , 127 ¶ 5 (App. 1998)). ¶21 The court’s application of the mootness doctrine is discretionary, and the court may address moot issues under certain circumstances. | 2 | 2 |
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co.green2 sentences2015As a result, the mootness doctrine prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24 , 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal citation and 2We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted. 3The minute entry was not signed and “[a]n unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10 , 330 P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see Ariz. R. 2015As a result, the mootness doctrine prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24 , 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal citation and 2We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted. 3The minute entry was not signed and “[a]n unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10 , 330 P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see Ariz. R. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Henrygreen2 sentences2016In re Henry’s Estate, 6 Ariz. App. 183, 188 , 430 P.2d 937, 942 (1967). 2016In re Henry's Estate, 6 Ariz.App, 183, 188, 430 P.2d 937, 942 (1967), If a mootness claim depends on such materials, a party should file an appropriate motion with supporting documentation in accordance with Rule 6(a)(3). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of A. O. A.green1 sentence2025See id. ¶13 Like Florida, Alabama, and Texas, we adopt a narrow exception to the mootness doctrine when a parent appealing a termination order passes away during the appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. City of Phoenixgreen1 sentence2023See Thomas, 171 Ariz. at 74 (discussing this exception to the mootness doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2015As a result, the mootness doctrine prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24 , 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal citation and 2We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted. 3The minute entry was not signed and “[a]n unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10 , 330 P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see Ariz. R. 2015As a result, the mootness doctrine prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24 , 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal citation and 2We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted. 3The minute entry was not signed and “[a]n unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins, 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10 , 330 P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Helffrichgreen2 sentences2008Sec., 182 Ariz. 141 , 143 n. 2, 893 P.2d 1304 , 1306 n. 2 (App.1995) (examining a possibly moot issue because it was "of statewide importance and . . . might otherwise *1184 elude review"); State v. Helffrich, 174 Ariz. 1, 5 , 846 P.2d 151, 155 (App.1992) ("Regardless of whether the issue is moot, we will consider the merits because the issue is of significant public importance and is likely to recur."). ¶ 39 That public importance exception to the mootness doctrine applies here as well. 2008Sec., 182 Ariz. 141 , 143 n. 2, 893 P.2d 1304 , 1306 n. 2 (App.1995) (examining a possibly moot issue because it was "of statewide importance and . . . might otherwise *1184 elude review"); State v. Helffrich, 174 Ariz. 1, 5 , 846 P.2d 151, 155 (App.1992) ("Regardless of whether the issue is moot, we will consider the merits because the issue is of significant public importance and is likely to recur."). ¶ 39 That public importance exception to the mootness doctrine applies here as well. | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committeegreen2 sentences2008Comm., 25 Ariz.App. 104, 106 , 541 P.2d 567, 569 (1975). 2008Comm., 25 Ariz.App. 104, 106 , 541 P.2d 567, 569 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Bilagody v. Thorneycroftgreen2 sentences2008Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 90 , 607 P.2d 965, 967 (App.1979). 2008Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 90 , 607 P.2d 965, 967 (App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium Districtgreen2 sentences2001Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium Dist., 185 Ariz. 116, 119 , 912 P.2d 1345, 1348 (App.1995). 2001Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium Dist., 185 Ariz. 116, 119 , 912 P.2d 1345, 1348 (App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Employee Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2001Fraternal Order of Police v. Phoenix Employee Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127 , 650 P.2d 428, 429 (1982); Exodyne Props., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 165 Ariz. 373, 376 , 798 P.2d 1382, 1385 (App.1990). ¶ 13 The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue of great public importance. 2001Fraternal Order of Police v. Phoenix Employee Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127 , 650 P.2d 428, 429 (1982); Exodyne Props., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 165 Ariz. 373, 376 , 798 P.2d 1382, 1385 (App.1990). ¶ 13 The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue of great public importance. | 1 | 1 |
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertsongreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 158 Ariz. 137, 140-41 , 761 P.2d 1041, 1044-45 (1988) (“Generally the mootness doctrine requires that judicial opinions not be rendered concerning issues which no longer exist because of changes in the factual circumstances.”). ¶ 12 Steel argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law following the jury’s verdict allocating 100% of fault for the plaintiffs’ damages to Steel and 0% to Lichman, a designated non-party at fault. 2001See, e.g., Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 158 Ariz. 137, 140-41 , 761 P.2d 1041, 1044-45 (1988) (“Generally the mootness doctrine requires that judicial opinions not be rendered concerning issues which no longer exist because of changes in the factual circumstances.”). ¶ 12 Steel argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law following the jury’s verdict allocating 100% of fault for the plaintiffs’ damages to Steel and 0% to Lichman, a designated non-party at fault. | 1 | 1 |
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenixgreen2 sentences2001Fraternal Order of Police v. Phoenix Employee Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127 , 650 P.2d 428, 429 (1982); Exodyne Props., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 165 Ariz. 373, 376 , 798 P.2d 1382, 1385 (App.1990). ¶ 13 The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue of great public importance. 2001Fraternal Order of Police v. Phoenix Employee Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127 , 650 P.2d 428, 429 (1982); Exodyne Props., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 165 Ariz. 373, 376 , 798 P.2d 1382, 1385 (App.1990). ¶ 13 The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue of great public importance. | 1 | 1 |
Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily Newsgreen1 sentence1995Id.; KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 246, 250 , 678 P.2d 431 , 435 (1984) (holding that an issue that will evade review is not subject to the mootness doctrine); see also generally Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 588 (Alaska 1990) (holding that the mootness doctrine is a product of judicial policy and not constitutional mandate; and explaining the exceptions to the doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Odle v. Imperial Ice Cream Company
neutral
2 sentences1985The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Board of Examiners v. Marchese, 49 Ariz. 350 , 66 P.2d 1035 (1937); Odle v. Imperial Ice Cream Co., 11 Ariz. App. 203 , 463 P.2d 98 (1970). 1985The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Board of Examiners v. Marchese, 49 Ariz. 350 , 66 P.2d 1035 (1937); Odle v. Imperial Ice Cream Co., 11 Ariz. App. 203 , 463 P.2d 98 (1970). | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare
green
2 sentences1985Nor does this case fall within another exception to the mootness doctrine for a case which poses a question of “public importance.” Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare, 106 Ariz. 30 , 470 P.2d 111 (1970). 1985Nor does this case fall within another exception to the mootness doctrine for a case which poses a question of “public importance.” Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare, 106 Ariz. 30 , 470 P.2d 111 (1970). | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Board of Examiners v. Marchese
green
2 sentences1985The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Board of Examiners v. Marchese, 49 Ariz. 350 , 66 P.2d 1035 (1937); Odle v. Imperial Ice Cream Co., 11 Ariz. App. 203 , 463 P.2d 98 (1970). 1985The present case does not fit within the exception to the mootness rule for an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Board of Examiners v. Marchese, 49 Ariz. 350 , 66 P.2d 1035 (1937); Odle v. Imperial Ice Cream Co., 11 Ariz. App. 203 , 463 P.2d 98 (1970). | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Salas v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2008Sec., 182 Ariz. 141 , 143 n. 2, 893 P.2d 1304 , 1306 n. 2 (App.1995) (examining a possibly moot issue because it was "of statewide importance and . . . might otherwise *1184 elude review"); State v. Helffrich, 174 Ariz. 1, 5 , 846 P.2d 151, 155 (App.1992) ("Regardless of whether the issue is moot, we will consider the merits because the issue is of significant public importance and is likely to recur."). ¶ 39 That public importance exception to the mootness doctrine applies here as well. 2008Sec., 182 Ariz. 141 , 143 n. 2, 893 P.2d 1304 , 1306 n. 2 (App.1995) (examining a possibly moot issue because it was "of statewide importance and . . . might otherwise *1184 elude review"); State v. Helffrich, 174 Ariz. 1, 5 , 846 P.2d 151, 155 (App.1992) ("Regardless of whether the issue is moot, we will consider the merits because the issue is of significant public importance and is likely to recur."). ¶ 39 That public importance exception to the mootness doctrine applies here as well. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kpnx Broadcasting v. Superior Court, Etc.
green
2 sentences1995Id.; KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 246, 250 , 678 P.2d 431 , 435 (1984) (holding that an issue that will evade review is not subject to the mootness doctrine); see also generally Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 588 (Alaska 1990) (holding that the mootness doctrine is a product of judicial policy and not constitutional mandate; and explaining the exceptions to the doctrine). 1995Id.; KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 246, 250 , 678 P.2d 431 , 435 (1984) (holding that an issue that will evade review is not subject to the mootness doctrine); see also generally Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 588 (Alaska 1990) (holding that the mootness doctrine is a product of judicial policy and not constitutional mandate; and explaining the exceptions to the doctrine). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon
green
2 sentences1989Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon, 156 Ariz. 161 , 750 P.2d 1364 (App.1987). 1989Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon, 156 Ariz. 161 , 750 P.2d 1364 (App.1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1971Appellant cites the case of Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 364 , 59 S.Ct. 301 , 83 L.Ed. 221 (1939), for the proposition that a secondary question of practical importance may preclude application of the mootness doctrine to an appeal and has appended the affidavit of Howard Godfrey of the City of Mesa Planning & Zoning Department in support of the argument that the decision of the trial court has an effect upon the zoning in the area by the City of Mesa. 1971Appellant cites the case of Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 364 , 59 S.Ct. 301 , 83 L.Ed. 221 (1939), for the proposition that a secondary question of practical importance may preclude application of the mootness doctrine to an appeal and has appended the affidavit of Howard Godfrey of the City of Mesa Planning & Zoning Department in support of the argument that the decision of the trial court has an effect upon the zoning in the area by the City of Mesa. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.