15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Polaris Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2003See Johnson v. Polaris Sales, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 300, 308-09 (D. 2003See Johnson v. Polaris Sales, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 300, 308-09 (D.Me.2003); Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 211 F.Supp.2d 197, 200 (D.Me. 2002); Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A v. MedPartners, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 677, 684-85 (D.Fla. 2001); In re R D Mgmt. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2026Given the parties’ agreement as to error, and because the question of prejudice is dispositive, we assume without deciding that error occurred. ¶13 To establish prejudice, Whipple “must show that a reasonable jury could have reached a different result had the jury been properly instructed.” State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490, 494, ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Canty v. Cantygreen1 sentence2026P. 69(b) ("An agreement under this rule is not binding on the court until it is submitted to and approved by the court . . . ."); Canty v. Canty, 178 Ariz. 443, 447 (App. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co.green1 sentence2023Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47, 51, ¶ 13 (1999) (“The FAA preempts state law and governs all written arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce, making such agreements enforceable in both federal and state courts.”). ¶15 According to GCS, the phrase “legally cognizable claims” limits the scope of the Agreement because a claim barred by claim preclusion is not cognizable. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Pownallgreen1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serranogreen1 sentence2022State v. Serrano, 234 Ariz. 491, 493, ¶ 4 (App. 2014). ¶7 In Hoffman v. Chandler ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp.green1 sentence2017Mendoza, 222 Ariz. at 149, ¶ 31 ("bad faith is a separate tort, and not a direct or natural consequence of a compensable workers' compensation injury"). | 1 | 1 |
Citizens Mercantile Co. v. Easomgreen2 sentences2012Compare Citizens’ Mercantile Co. v. Easom, 158 Ga. 604 , 123 S.E. 883, 886 (1924) (holding that a purchaser was not entitled to equitable sub-rogation because he did not pay “debts under an agreement, express or implied, ... that *275 he would be subrogated’’), with In re Mortgages Ltd., 459 B.R. 739, 742 (Bankr.D.Ariz. 2011) (“Arizona ease law seems to hold that the subsequent lender’s intent to obtain first lien priority is sufficient evidence, standing alone, to satisfy the agreement requirement.”). ¶21 We adopt the Restatement approach and reject any requirement of an “agreement” as a cond 2012Compare Citizens’ Mercantile Co. v. Easom, 158 Ga. 604 , 123 S.E. 883, 886 (1924) (holding that a purchaser was not entitled to equitable sub-rogation because he did not pay “debts under an agreement, express or implied, ... that *275 he would be subrogated’’), with In re Mortgages Ltd., 459 B.R. 739, 742 (Bankr.D.Ariz. 2011) (“Arizona ease law seems to hold that the subsequent lender’s intent to obtain first lien priority is sufficient evidence, standing alone, to satisfy the agreement requirement.”). ¶21 We adopt the Restatement approach and reject any requirement of an “agreement” as a cond | 1 | 1 |
Jeffrey C. Stone, Inc. v. Central & Monroe, L.L.C. (In Re Mortgages Ltd.)green1 sentence2012Compare Citizens’ Mercantile Co. v. Easom, 158 Ga. 604 , 123 S.E. 883, 886 (1924) (holding that a purchaser was not entitled to equitable sub-rogation because he did not pay “debts under an agreement, express or implied, ... that *275 he would be subrogated’’), with In re Mortgages Ltd., 459 B.R. 739, 742 (Bankr.D.Ariz. 2011) (“Arizona ease law seems to hold that the subsequent lender’s intent to obtain first lien priority is sufficient evidence, standing alone, to satisfy the agreement requirement.”). ¶21 We adopt the Restatement approach and reject any requirement of an “agreement” as a cond | 1 | 1 |
State v. Escobedogreen2 sentences2009Escobedo, 222 Ariz. at 266, ¶ 50 , 213 P.3d at 703 (summarizing Pandeli as involving a failure to object to proposed testimony and affirmatively arguing that it was admissible). ¶ 25 Second, in a case decided after Pandeli , our supreme court implied that it will not apply invited error when there was mere acquiescence in the error. 2009Escobedo, 222 Ariz. at 266, ¶ 50 , 213 P.3d at 703 (summarizing Pandeli as involving a failure to object to proposed testimony and affirmatively arguing that it was admissible). ¶ 25 Second, in a case decided after Pandeli , our supreme court implied that it will not apply invited error when there was mere acquiescence in the error. | 1 | 1 |
Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc.green1 sentence2003See Johnson v. Polaris Sales, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 300, 308-09 (D.Me.2003); Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 211 F.Supp.2d 197, 200 (D.Me. 2002); Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A v. MedPartners, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 677, 684-85 (D.Fla. 2001); In re R D Mgmt. | 1 | 1 |
Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPartners, Inc.green1 sentence2003See Johnson v. Polaris Sales, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 300, 308-09 (D.Me.2003); Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 211 F.Supp.2d 197, 200 (D.Me. 2002); Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A v. MedPartners, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 677, 684-85 (D.Fla. 2001); In re R D Mgmt. | 1 | 1 |
MacHado v. MacHadogreen1 sentence1982Since there was no evidence of a common understanding or an agreement the presumption was not overcome, [citations omitted]” 25 Cal.Rptr. at 90 , 375 P.2d at 58. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund
green
1 sentence2025A party may breach this covenant without necessarily breaching an express term of the agreement because the inquiry turns on whether the parties act faithfully “to an agreed common purpose and consisten[t] with the justified expectations of the other party.” Id. at 492–93, ¶¶ 66, 69 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Kevin R. Dailey
green
1 sentence2005E.g., Dailey, 759 F.2d at 200 ; Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 592-93 ; Nerison, 401 N.W.2d at 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Nerison
green
1 sentence2005E.g., Dailey, 759 F.2d at 200 ; Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 592-93 ; Nerison, 401 N.W.2d at 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bolden
green
1 sentence2005E.g., Dailey, 759 F.2d at 200 ; Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 592-93 ; Nerison, 401 N.W.2d at 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Stufflebeam v. Canadian Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1991The court on appeal suggested that the insurer could have intervened to contest the reasonableness of the agreement. 157 Ariz. at 9 , 754 P.2d at 338 . 1991The court on appeal suggested that the insurer could have intervened to contest the reasonableness of the agreement. 157 Ariz. at 9 , 754 P.2d at 338 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hart v. Hart
green
2 sentences1982A similar decision was arrived at by the Florida court in Hart v. Hart, 377 So.2d 51 (Fla.App.1979) where the court states: “Here, this presumption was not rebutted by the husband’s simple assertion that he put the lot in joint names upon the estate planning advice of his accountant, particularly where there was never any discussion between him and his wife with respect to title to the property, [citation omitted] ...” 377 So.2d at 53 . 1982A similar decision was arrived at by the Florida court in Hart v. Hart, 377 So.2d 51 (Fla.App.1979) where the court states: “Here, this presumption was not rebutted by the husband’s simple assertion that he put the lot in joint names upon the estate planning advice of his accountant, particularly where there was never any discussion between him and his wife with respect to title to the property, [citation omitted] ...” 377 So.2d at 53 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Machado v. Machado
green
1 sentence1982Since there was no evidence of a common understanding or an agreement the presumption was not overcome, [citations omitted]” 25 Cal.Rptr. at 90 , 375 P.2d at 58. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Lee
green
1 sentence1977As we stated in Lee , “[t]his court is not inclined to find an appellant’s later dissatisfaction with his plea bargain an appropriate basis for reversal.” 112 Ariz. at 284, 541 P.2d at 384 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.