6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bejaranogreen2 sentences2022See State v. Bejarano, 219 Ariz. 518, 519, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). 2022See State v. Bejarano, 219 Ariz. 518, 519, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C.green2 sentences2008See Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589, ¶8 , 161 P.3d 1253, 1257 (App.2007). 2008See Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589, ¶8 , 161 P.3d 1253, 1257 (App.2007). | 2 | 2 |
Chalpin v. Snydergreen1 sentence2025Decision of the Court construction of the complaint serves the law’s “primary objective . . . [of] obtain[ing] a determination of the merits of any claim” by trial “on the proofs rather than the pleadings.” Long v. Ariz. Portland Cement Co., 89 Ariz. 366, 369 (1961). ¶6 To state a claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings, the plaintiff must allege “that the defendant (1) instituted a civil action which was (2) motivated by malice, (3) begun [or maintained] without probable cause, (4) terminated in plaintiff’s favor and (5) damaged plaintiff.” Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413, 419, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Arizona Portland Cement Companygreen1 sentence2025Decision of the Court construction of the complaint serves the law’s “primary objective . . . [of] obtain[ing] a determination of the merits of any claim” by trial “on the proofs rather than the pleadings.” Long v. Ariz. Portland Cement Co., 89 Ariz. 366, 369 (1961). ¶6 To state a claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings, the plaintiff must allege “that the defendant (1) instituted a civil action which was (2) motivated by malice, (3) begun [or maintained] without probable cause, (4) terminated in plaintiff’s favor and (5) damaged plaintiff.” Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413, 419, ¶ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rennie & Laughlin, Inc., a Corporation v. Chrysler Corporation, a Corporation
green
1 sentence1961The great weight of authority is that “the primary objective of the law is to obtain a determination of the merits of any claim * * * and that a case should be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ; Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 9 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 208, 213 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences1961The great weight of authority is that “the primary objective of the law is to obtain a determination of the merits of any claim * * * and that a case should be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ; Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 9 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 208, 213 . 1961The great weight of authority is that “the primary objective of the law is to obtain a determination of the merits of any claim * * * and that a case should be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ; Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 9 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 208, 213 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.