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.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache Countygreen2 sentences2024Ctr. v. Apache Cnty., 140 Ariz. 476, 477 (App. 1984) (“A party making a claim against the county must allege compliance with the statutory claims procedure before his complaint states a cause of action or sets forth facts conferring subject matter jurisdiction on the court.”). ¶25 The November 29, 2022, notice fails to specify each item, the date and the amount of each item claimed. 1989In Tucson Medical Center v. Apache County, 140 Ariz. 476, 477 , 682 P.2d 1143, 1144 (App.1984), the court thus concluded: A party making a claim against the county must allege compliance with the statutory claims procedure, before his complaint states a cause of action or sets up facts conferring jurisdiction of subject matter on the court. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Riveragreen1 sentence2022See A.R.S. § 25-408(G) (burden on party seeking relocation); State v. Rivera, 210 Ariz. 188, 190, ¶ 11 (2005) (noting that “cross- examination is the appropriate tool for probing the truthfulness of a witness’s statements”). | 1 | 1 |
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2013See United Cal. Bank, 140 Ariz. at 283-84 , 681 P.2d at 435-36 (“[T]o recover damages for anticipatory breach, the injured party need only show that he had the ability to perform his own obligations under the agreement.” (emphasis added)). ¶ 12 Here, the Thomases’ anticipatory repudiation on May 6 excused Montelucia from further performance and gave Montelueia a claim for damages for breach. 2013See United Cal. Bank, 140 Ariz. at 283-84 , 681 P.2d at 435-36 (“[T]o recover damages for anticipatory breach, the injured party need only show that he had the ability to perform his own obligations under the agreement.” (emphasis added)). ¶ 12 Here, the Thomases’ anticipatory repudiation on May 6 excused Montelucia from further performance and gave Montelueia a claim for damages for breach. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Comergreen2 sentences1999State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 426 , 799 P.2d 333, 346 (1990). ¶ 19 A juror with “prior knowledge of a case or preconceived notions concerning the defendant’s guilt” is not automatically disqualified. 1999State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 426 , 799 P.2d 333, 346 (1990). ¶ 19 A juror with “prior knowledge of a case or preconceived notions concerning the defendant’s guilt” is not automatically disqualified. | 1 | 1 |
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Departmentgreen2 sentences1995See Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Dep’t, 151 Ariz. 330, 333 , 727 P.2d 825, 828 (App.1986) (offensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when the party making a claim attempts to assert rulings against its opponent made in a prior judgment to which the one asserting estoppel was not a party). 1995See Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Dep’t, 151 Ariz. 330, 333 , 727 P.2d 825, 828 (App.1986) (offensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when the party making a claim attempts to assert rulings against its opponent made in a prior judgment to which the one asserting estoppel was not a party). | 1 | 1 |
Spettigue v. Mahoneygreen2 sentences1981The court of appeals in Spettigue v. Mahoney, 8 Ariz.App. 281 , 445 P.2d 557 *107 (1968), applied the Restatement rule in rejecting offensive use of collateral estoppel. 1981The court of appeals in Spettigue v. Mahoney, 8 Ariz.App. 281 , 445 P.2d 557 *107 (1968), applied the Restatement rule in rejecting offensive use of collateral estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mgic Indemnity Corp., and Continental Casualty Co. v. Central Bank of Monroe, La.
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 1388 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n
green
2 sentences1989Tucson Medical Center v. Apache County, 140 Ariz. 476 , 682 P.2d 1143 (App.1984); Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Association, 122 Ariz. 542 , 596 P.2d 377 (App.1979). 1989Tucson Medical Center v. Apache County, 140 Ariz. 476 , 682 P.2d 1143 (App.1984); Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Association, 122 Ariz. 542 , 596 P.2d 377 (App.1979). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Food for Health Co. v. 3839 Joint Venture
green
1 sentence1986Id. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
American Credit Bureau v. Pima County
green
2 sentences1984American Credit Bureau v. Pima County, 122 Ariz. 545 , 596 P.2d 380 (1979). 1984American Credit Bureau v. Pima County, 122 Ariz. 545 , 596 P.2d 380 (1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.