6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Phoenix v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2025Cf. City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568 , 574 ¶ 29 (2009) (“Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in an answer or a Rule 12(b) motion, . . . it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation.”). 2010See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 574, ¶ 29 , 201 P.3d 529, 535 (2009) (“Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in an answer or a Rule 12(b) motion, however, it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation____This rule applies to the notice of claim statute defense.” (citation omitted)); County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 224 Ariz. 590, 597, ¶ 8 , 233 P.3d 1169, 1176 (App.2010). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Cochise Countygreen2 sentences2010Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in its answer, however, “it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation.” Id. ¶ 29; see also Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, ¶ 29 , 187 P.3d 97, 106 (App.2008) (finding county waived notice of claim defense as matter of law by its significant participation in litigation). 2010Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in its answer, however, “it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation.” Id. ¶ 29; see also Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, ¶ 29 , 187 P.3d 97, 106 (App.2008) (finding county waived notice of claim defense as matter of law by its significant participation in litigation). | 2 | 2 |
Continental Bank v. Meyergreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Cont’l Bank v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 , 1296-97 (7th Cir.1993) (finding waiver of personal jurisdiction defense timely raised in answer after party fully participated in merits of litigation for more than two- and-one-half years without actively contesting personal jurisdiction). 2009See, e.g., Cont'l Bank v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 , 1296-97 (7th Cir.1993) (finding waiver of personal jurisdiction defense timely raised in answer after party fully participated in merits of litigation for more than two-and-one-half years without actively contesting personal jurisdiction). | 2 | 2 |
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co.green2 sentences2010See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 574, ¶ 29 , 201 P.3d 529, 535 (2009) (“Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in an answer or a Rule 12(b) motion, however, it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation____This rule applies to the notice of claim statute defense.” (citation omitted)); County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 224 Ariz. 590, 597, ¶ 8 , 233 P.3d 1169, 1176 (App.2010). 2010See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 574, ¶ 29 , 201 P.3d 529, 535 (2009) (“Even when a party preserves an affirmative defense in an answer or a Rule 12(b) motion, however, it may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation____This rule applies to the notice of claim statute defense.” (citation omitted)); County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 224 Ariz. 590, 597, ¶ 8 , 233 P.3d 1169, 1176 (App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.