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.
9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Housergreen2 sentences2019In Deer Valley, our Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff did not file a valid notice of claim because she “fail[ed] to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims.” Id. at 297, 299, ¶¶ 11, 23 . 2009P. 4.1(h); Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, ¶ 7 , 182 P.3d 1169, 1171 (2008) (“filing” of notice of claim against state means actual delivery of such notice to the Attorney General). ¶ 12 In Deer Valley, our supreme court ruled that the plaintiff (real party in interest) “fail[ed] to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims” and, therefore, “did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit.” 214 Ariz. 293, ¶¶ 11, 23 , 152 P.3d at 494, 496 . | 3 | 3 |
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2007See Falcon, 213 Ariz. at 527 ¶ 10, 144 P.3d at 1256 . 2007See Falcon, 213 Ariz. at 527 ¶ 10, 144 P.3d at 1256 . | 2 | 2 |
Progressive Specialty Insurance v. Farmers Insurancegreen1 sentence2023Co. of Ariz., 143 Ariz. 547, 548 (App. 2014) (stating an appeals court should not "decide issues unless it is required to do so in order to dispose of the appeal under consideration"). ¶14 A valid notice of claim must contain "a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount." A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A); Deer Valley Unified Sch. | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2009P. 4.1(h); Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, ¶ 7 , 182 P.3d 1169, 1171 (2008) (“filing” of notice of claim against state means actual delivery of such notice to the Attorney General). ¶ 12 In Deer Valley, our supreme court ruled that the plaintiff (real party in interest) “fail[ed] to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims” and, therefore, “did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit.” 214 Ariz. 293, ¶¶ 11, 23 , 152 P.3d at 494, 496 . 2009P. 4.1(h); Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, ¶ 7 , 182 P.3d 1169, 1171 (2008) (“filing” of notice of claim against state means actual delivery of such notice to the Attorney General). ¶ 12 In Deer Valley, our supreme court ruled that the plaintiff (real party in interest) “fail[ed] to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims” and, therefore, “did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit.” 214 Ariz. 293, ¶¶ 11, 23 , 152 P.3d at 494, 496 . | 1 | 1 |
DeSilva v. Bakergreen2 sentences2009Rather, it merely followed the law in concluding that Beynon’s notice of claim was legally deficient and, therefore, the claim was “barred and no action [could] be maintained thereon.” § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. 293, ¶23 , 152 P.3d at 496 (“Because [plaintiff] did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit, her claim is barred by statute.”); DeSilva, 208 Ariz. 597, ¶¶ 12-13 , 96 P.3d at 1087-88 (in attorney-malpractice action, no need to address plaintiffs contention that defendants in underlying case “would have had to assert and prevail upon the aff 2009Rather, it merely followed the law in concluding that Beynon’s notice of claim was legally deficient and, therefore, the claim was “barred and no action [could] be maintained thereon.” § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. 293, ¶23 , 152 P.3d at 496 (“Because [plaintiff] did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit, her claim is barred by statute.”); DeSilva, 208 Ariz. 597, ¶¶ 12-13 , 96 P.3d at 1087-88 (in attorney-malpractice action, no need to address plaintiffs contention that defendants in underlying case “would have had to assert and prevail upon the aff | 1 | 1 |
DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. Housergreen2 sentences2009P. 4.1(h); Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, ¶ 7 , 182 P.3d 1169, 1171 (2008) (“filing” of notice of claim against state means actual delivery of such notice to the Attorney General). ¶ 12 In Deer Valley, our supreme court ruled that the plaintiff (real party in interest) “fail[ed] to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims” and, therefore, “did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit.” 214 Ariz. 293, ¶¶ 11, 23 , 152 P.3d at 494, 496 . 2009Rather, it merely followed the law in concluding that Beynon’s notice of claim was legally deficient and, therefore, the claim was “barred and no action [could] be maintained thereon.” § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. 293, ¶23 , 152 P.3d at 496 (“Because [plaintiff] did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit, her claim is barred by statute.”); DeSilva, 208 Ariz. 597, ¶¶ 12-13 , 96 P.3d at 1087-88 (in attorney-malpractice action, no need to address plaintiffs contention that defendants in underlying case “would have had to assert and prevail upon the aff | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Pima County
green
2 sentences2020Humphrey sent this letter a month after the 2008 notice was filed, and it confirms he possessed sufficient facts to file a valid notice of claim before May 2, 2010. 11 HUMPHREY, et al. v. STATE Opinion of the Court ¶28 Humphrey’s arguments are similar to those raised by the plaintiffs in Thompson, who unsuccessfully asserted their notice of claim was timely because accrual did not begin until their investigation into the State’s negligence was complete and they received their expert’s opinion on causation. 226 Ariz. at 44–45, ¶¶ 6–9. 2019Humphrey sent this letter a month after the 2008 notice was filed, but it confirms he possessed sufficient facts to file a valid notice of claim before May 2, 2010. 12 HUMPHREY, et al. v. STATE Decision of the Court could not be evaluated or known (even via traffic engineer) without prior crossover crash information.” ¶26 Humphrey’s arguments are similar to those raised by the plaintiffs in Thompson v. Pima County, who asserted their notice of claim was timely because accrual did not begin until their investigation into the State’s negligence was complete and they received their expert’s opini | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Young v. City of Scottsdale
green
2 sentences2007Laws at 437, ch. 162, § 2. ¶ 20 The court of appeals addressed the effect of these amendments in Young , which *496 considered a notice of claim that provided that damages would "not exceed $100,000.00." 193 Ariz. at 111 ¶ 3, 970 P.2d at 943 . 2007Laws at 437, ch. 162, § 2. ¶ 20 The court of appeals addressed the effect of these amendments in Young , which *496 considered a notice of claim that provided that damages would "not exceed $100,000.00." 193 Ariz. at 111 ¶ 3, 970 P.2d at 943 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Dassinger v. Oden
green
2 sentences2007The court concluded that "[t]here is no sum certain contained in the letter which plaintiffs would have been satisfied to settle for." Id. at 553 , 606 P.2d at 43 . [4] *495 ¶ 16 More than a decade later, the court of appeals abandoned its requirement that a valid notice of claim include a settlement demand for a sum certain. 2007The court concluded that "[t]here is no sum certain contained in the letter which plaintiffs would have been satisfied to settle for." Id. at 553 , 606 P.2d at 43 . [4] *495 ¶ 16 More than a decade later, the court of appeals abandoned its requirement that a valid notice of claim include a settlement demand for a sum certain. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix
green
2 sentences2007In Hollingsworth, 164 Ariz. at 463-64 , 793 P.2d at 1130-31 , the court considered whether a claim letter that provided an "educated estimate" that damages would be "not less than $125,000" satisfied the sum certain requirement. [5] The Hollingsworth court noted that Brooks and Dassinger had relied in part on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). 2007In Hollingsworth, 164 Ariz. at 463-64 , 793 P.2d at 1130-31 , the court considered whether a claim letter that provided an "educated estimate" that damages would be "not less than $125,000" satisfied the sum certain requirement. [5] The Hollingsworth court noted that Brooks and Dassinger had relied in part on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Backus v. State
green
1 sentence2022We continue to recognize that “[e]ncouraging additional litigation frustrates one of the goals of § 12-821.01, which is to encourage public entities and claimants to resolve claims without resorting to litigation.” Backus, 220 Ariz. at 106 ¶ 21. 8 JAMES, ET AL. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Yollin v. City of Glendale
green
2 sentences2009Rather, it merely followed the law in concluding that Beynon’s notice of claim was legally deficient and, therefore, the claim was “barred and no action [could] be maintained thereon.” § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. 293, ¶23 , 152 P.3d at 496 (“Because [plaintiff] did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit, her claim is barred by statute.”); DeSilva, 208 Ariz. 597, ¶¶ 12-13 , 96 P.3d at 1087-88 (in attorney-malpractice action, no need to address plaintiffs contention that defendants in underlying case “would have had to assert and prevail upon the aff 2009Rather, it merely followed the law in concluding that Beynon’s notice of claim was legally deficient and, therefore, the claim was “barred and no action [could] be maintained thereon.” § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. 293, ¶23 , 152 P.3d at 496 (“Because [plaintiff] did not file a valid notice of claim within the statutory time limit, her claim is barred by statute.”); DeSilva, 208 Ariz. 597, ¶¶ 12-13 , 96 P.3d at 1087-88 (in attorney-malpractice action, no need to address plaintiffs contention that defendants in underlying case “would have had to assert and prevail upon the aff | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.