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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Krohngreen2 sentences2013See In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205, 210, ¶ 18 , 52 P.3d 774, 779 (2002) (Arizona courts do not follow the Restatement in the face of “legislative enactment” to the contrary). 4 ¶ 22 Finally, in urging us to reverse the summary judgment against her, Jamerson argues that Arizona should join several other jurisdictions in holding under the common law that, absent a contrary intent of the settling parties, a settlement with the principal does not as a matter of law bar a claim against the agent. 5 Because § 12-2504 preserves Jamerson’s claim against American, we need not address the issue under the co 2013See In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205, 210, ¶ 18 , 52 P.3d 774, 779 (2002) (Arizona courts do not follow the Restatement in the face of “legislative enactment” to the contrary). 4 ¶ 22 Finally, in urging us to reverse the summary judgment against her, Jamerson argues that Arizona should join several other jurisdictions in holding under the common law that, absent a contrary intent of the settling parties, a settlement with the principal does not as a matter of law bar a claim against the agent. 5 Because § 12-2504 preserves Jamerson’s claim against American, we need not address the issue under the co | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Davisgreen2 sentences2005See Burns v. Davis, 196 Ariz. 155 , 164 ¶ 36, 993 P.2d 1119, 1128 (App.1999). 2005See Burns v. Davis, 196 Ariz. 155 , 164 ¶ 36, 993 P.2d 1119, 1128 (App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1997In Markel, the court refused to deny relief on the ground that the appellant had failed to file a supersedeas bond. 103 Ariz. at 363 , 442 P.2d at 107 . “ ‘An appellant’s election not to take the steps necessary to supersede or stay the judgment or decree pending appeal does not as a matter of law bar his entitlement to restitution upon reversal by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla.App.1960)). | 1 | 1 |
Hartline v. Clarygreen1 sentence1967See Hartline v. Clary, D.C., 141 F.Supp. 151 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta
green
1 sentence2016A judgment as a matter of law should be entered only “if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568 , 578 ¶ 25 (App. 2015) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Green Acres Trust v. London
green
2 sentences2005Thus, the holding of the court in Consumers Union is consistent with Arizona authority and fails to address the issue of "group defamation." [7] Although both "absolute" and "qualified" privileges exist for defamatory or injurious statements, see, e.g., Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 612-13 , 688 P.2d at 620-21 , because qualified privileges depend on the occasion and the scope of the privilege, rarely can a reviewing court determine that a qualified privilege exists as a matter of law to bar the plaintiff's action. 2005Thus, the holding of the court in Consumers Union is consistent with Arizona authority and fails to address the issue of "group defamation." [7] Although both "absolute" and "qualified" privileges exist for defamatory or injurious statements, see, e.g., Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 612-13 , 688 P.2d at 620-21 , because qualified privileges depend on the occasion and the scope of the privilege, rarely can a reviewing court determine that a qualified privilege exists as a matter of law to bar the plaintiff's action. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1997In Markel, the court refused to deny relief on the ground that the appellant had failed to file a supersedeas bond. 103 Ariz. at 363 , 442 P.2d at 107 . “ ‘An appellant’s election not to take the steps necessary to supersede or stay the judgment or decree pending appeal does not as a matter of law bar his entitlement to restitution upon reversal by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla.App.1960)). 1997In Markel, the court refused to deny relief on the ground that the appellant had failed to file a supersedeas bond. 103 Ariz. at 363 , 442 P.2d at 107 . “ ‘An appellant’s election not to take the steps necessary to supersede or stay the judgment or decree pending appeal does not as a matter of law bar his entitlement to restitution upon reversal by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla.App.1960)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope Irrigation District
green
2 sentences1968Dist, 175 Or. 276 , 152 P.2d 934 , the Oregon Supreme Court had before it a case where the defendant argued that the plaintiff might have saved himself from the loss of the use of his property by giving a supersedeas bond. 1968Dist, 175 Or. 276 , 152 P.2d 934 , the Oregon Supreme Court had before it a case where the defendant argued that the plaintiff might have saved himself from the loss of the use of his property by giving a supersedeas bond. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.