12 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pettit v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2022Although the superior court did not rely on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the District raised it as a defense, and “we will affirm the court’s ruling[s] on any legal theory supported by the record.” Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶21 To “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and . . . encourage reliance on adjudication,” Ferris v. Hawkins, 135 Ariz. 329, 331 (App. 1983) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)), the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue or fact that it “has 2019See Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 10 (App. 2008). ¶12 The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, “precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was ‘actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.’” Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell, 246 Ariz. 54, 54, ¶ 1 (2019) (quoting Chaney Bldg. | 2 | 2 |
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen2 sentences1995“The doctrine of ‘collateral estoppel’ is a doctrine of issue preclusion.” Gilbert v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 155 Ariz. 169, 174 , 745 P.2d 617, 622 (App.1987). 1995“The doctrine of ‘collateral estoppel’ is a doctrine of issue preclusion.” Gilbert v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 155 Ariz. 169, 174 , 745 P.2d 617, 622 (App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/stategreen2 sentences2021Decision of the Court ¶11 The doctrine of issue preclusion “precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Olesen v. Daniel, 251 Ariz. 25, 30, ¶ 20 (App. 2021) (quoting Crosby- Garbotz v. Fell, 246 Ariz. 54, 55, ¶ 14 (2019)). 2019See Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 10 (App. 2008). ¶12 The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, “precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was ‘actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.’” Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell, 246 Ariz. 54, 54, ¶ 1 (2019) (quoting Chaney Bldg. | 2 | 2 |
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroagreen1 sentence2024To resolve this issue, we must construe the language of the mediation settlement agreement. ¶19 “The purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the parties’ intent and enforce that intent.” Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593, ¶ 9 (App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Oyeniran v. Eric H. Holder Jr.green1 sentence2023Compare Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012), with Chaney Bldg. | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. McCurrygreen1 sentence2022Although the superior court did not rely on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the District raised it as a defense, and “we will affirm the court’s ruling[s] on any legal theory supported by the record.” Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶21 To “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and . . . encourage reliance on adjudication,” Ferris v. Hawkins, 135 Ariz. 329, 331 (App. 1983) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)), the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue or fact that it “has | 1 | 1 |
Ferris v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence2022Although the superior court did not rely on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the District raised it as a defense, and “we will affirm the court’s ruling[s] on any legal theory supported by the record.” Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶21 To “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and . . . encourage reliance on adjudication,” Ferris v. Hawkins, 135 Ariz. 329, 331 (App. 1983) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)), the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue or fact that it “has | 1 | 1 |
Olesen v. daniel/burgegreen1 sentence2021Decision of the Court ¶11 The doctrine of issue preclusion “precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Olesen v. Daniel, 251 Ariz. 25, 30, ¶ 20 (App. 2021) (quoting Crosby- Garbotz v. Fell, 246 Ariz. 54, 55, ¶ 14 (2019)). | 1 | 1 |
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucsongreen1 sentence2019Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 573 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Arthurgreen1 sentence2017Citing the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 36(2), the Fifth Circuit reversed, explaining that claim preclusion “does not apply to a situation ... in which a party appears in one action in an individual capacity and in a subsequent action in a representative capacity.” Clark, 794 F.2d at 973 ; see also Brooks v. Arthur, 626 F.3d 194, 196-96 (4th Cir. 2010) (corrections officers not in privity with themselves in their official and individual capacities for purposes of claim preclusion). ¶ 31 The court in Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir. 1993), examined a grandmother’s differing | 1 | 1 |
cluster 612169green1 sentence2017Citing the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 36(2), the Fifth Circuit reversed, explaining that claim preclusion “does not apply to a situation ... in which a party appears in one action in an individual capacity and in a subsequent action in a representative capacity.” Clark, 794 F.2d at 973 ; see also Brooks v. Arthur, 626 F.3d 194, 196-96 (4th Cir. 2010) (corrections officers not in privity with themselves in their official and individual capacities for purposes of claim preclusion). ¶ 31 The court in Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir. 1993), examined a grandmother’s differing | 1 | 1 |
Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc.green2 sentences2016See Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 215 Ariz. 103 , 107 n.3, ¶ 11, 158 P.3d 232 , 236 n.3 (App. 2007). 2016See Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 215 Ariz. 103 , 107 n.3, ¶ 11, 158 P.3d 232 , 236 n.3 (App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2014See 4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County, 212 Ariz. 98, 103, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 215, 220 (2006) (explaining that issue preclusion bars the litigation of issues “that have in fact been litigated and were essential to a prior judgment”). 2014See 4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County, 212 Ariz. 98, 103, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 215, 220 (2006) (explaining that issue preclusion bars the litigation of issues “that have in fact been litigated and were essential to a prior judgment”). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc.green2 sentences2010Schalkenbach Found., v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 208 Ariz. 176, 180, ¶ 18 , 91 P.3d 1019, 1023 (App.2004). 5 . 2010Schalkenbach Found., v. Lincoln Found., Inc., 208 Ariz. 176, 180, ¶ 18 , 91 P.3d 1019, 1023 (App.2004). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2001See Stainless, 144 Ariz. at 19 , 695 P.2d at 268 . 2001See Stainless, 144 Ariz. at 19 , 695 P.2d at 268 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System
green
1 sentence2022Exam’rs, 155 Ariz. 169, 174 (App. 1987), abrogated by statute on other grounds as noted in Goodman v. Samaritan Health Sys., 195 Ariz. 502, 508 , ¶ 25 n.7 (App. 1999)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
James Clark v. Amoco Production Co., Etc.
green
1 sentence2017Citing the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 36(2), the Fifth Circuit reversed, explaining that claim preclusion “does not apply to a situation ... in which a party appears in one action in an individual capacity and in a subsequent action in a representative capacity.” Clark, 794 F.2d at 973 ; see also Brooks v. Arthur, 626 F.3d 194, 196-96 (4th Cir. 2010) (corrections officers not in privity with themselves in their official and individual capacities for purposes of claim preclusion). ¶ 31 The court in Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir. 1993), examined a grandmother’s differing | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brown v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 524, ¶ 14 , 19 P.3d at 1240 . ¶ 9 In this case, we find it unnecessary to determine whether Bank One’s effort to modify Claimant’s medication is barred by the issue preclusion exception noted in Brown. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.