entity promptly raised defense (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

entity promptly raised defense in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2023 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Phoenix v. Fieldsgreen
ariz · 2009 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2011–2021
2 sentences

2021As the Arizona Supreme Court noted more recently, because the City could “entirely avoid” litigation on the merits by promptly invoking a notice of claim defense, “waiver of that defense should be found when the defendant ‘has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.’” City of Phx. v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568 , 575 ¶ 30 (2009) (citation omitted).

2011Id. at 381, ¶ 29 , 187 P.3d at 106 . “[W]aiver may be found when a governmental entity has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.” Id. at 380, ¶ 26 , 187 P.3d at 105 . *429 ¶ 16 The Arizona Supreme Court cited Jones approvingly in City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 574-75 , ¶¶ 29-30 & 33, 201 P.3d 529, 535-36 (2009) (defendant city’s active litigation waived its right to seek dismissal due to plaintiffs failure to abide by A.R.S. § 12-821.01).

13
Lee v. Stategreen
arizctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In Fields , the court pointed to arbitration as a useful analogy regarding waiver: “It is widely recognized that even when a dispute is subject to arbitration, that right may be waived by a party who participates substantially in litigation without promptly seeking an order from the court compelling arbitration.” 219 Ariz. at 575 n.4, ¶ 30, 201 P.3d at 536 n.4. ¶ 17 Both Jones and Fields cited Pritchard v. State, which, while based on A.R.S. § 12-821, 6 an earlier version of the current A.R.S. § 12-821.01, held compliance with the statute was a procedural, not jurisdictional, prerequisite to b

2011In Fields , the court pointed to arbitration as a useful analogy regarding waiver: “It is widely recognized that even when a dispute is subject to arbitration, that right may be waived by a party who participates substantially in litigation without promptly seeking an order from the court compelling arbitration.” 219 Ariz. at 575 n.4, ¶ 30, 201 P.3d at 536 n.4. ¶ 17 Both Jones and Fields cited Pritchard v. State, which, while based on A.R.S. § 12-821, 6 an earlier version of the current A.R.S. § 12-821.01, held compliance with the statute was a procedural, not jurisdictional, prerequisite to b

11
Pritchard v. Stategreen
ariz · 1990 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In Fields , the court pointed to arbitration as a useful analogy regarding waiver: “It is widely recognized that even when a dispute is subject to arbitration, that right may be waived by a party who participates substantially in litigation without promptly seeking an order from the court compelling arbitration.” 219 Ariz. at 575 n.4, ¶ 30, 201 P.3d at 536 n.4. ¶ 17 Both Jones and Fields cited Pritchard v. State, which, while based on A.R.S. § 12-821, 6 an earlier version of the current A.R.S. § 12-821.01, held compliance with the statute was a procedural, not jurisdictional, prerequisite to b

2011In Fields , the court pointed to arbitration as a useful analogy regarding waiver: “It is widely recognized that even when a dispute is subject to arbitration, that right may be waived by a party who participates substantially in litigation without promptly seeking an order from the court compelling arbitration.” 219 Ariz. at 575 n.4, ¶ 30, 201 P.3d at 536 n.4. ¶ 17 Both Jones and Fields cited Pritchard v. State, which, while based on A.R.S. § 12-821, 6 an earlier version of the current A.R.S. § 12-821.01, held compliance with the statute was a procedural, not jurisdictional, prerequisite to b

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Jones v. Cochise County green
arizctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2023Waiver is appropriate “when a governmental entity has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.” Id. at 380 ¶ 26.

2011Id. at 381, ¶ 29 , 187 P.3d at 106 . “[W]aiver may be found when a governmental entity has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.” Id. at 380, ¶ 26 , 187 P.3d at 105 . *429 ¶ 16 The Arizona Supreme Court cited Jones approvingly in City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 574-75 , ¶¶ 29-30 & 33, 201 P.3d 529, 535-36 (2009) (defendant city’s active litigation waived its right to seek dismissal due to plaintiffs failure to abide by A.R.S. § 12-821.01).

42009–2023
Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. green
scotus · 1974
2 sentences

2016Waiver, the court held, should be found when the defendant “has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.” ' Id. at ¶ 30. ¶ 15 Cases addressing arbitration clauses also offer guidance because “[a]n agreement to arbitrate before a specified tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause.” Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 , 94 S.Ct. 2449 , 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974).

2016Waiver, the court held, should be found when the defendant “has taken substantial action to litigate the merits of the claim that would not have been necessary had the entity promptly raised the defense.” ' Id. at ¶ 30. ¶ 15 Cases addressing arbitration clauses also offer guidance because “[a]n agreement to arbitrate before a specified tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause.” Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 , 94 S.Ct. 2449 , 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974).

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01 (4) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check