6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc.green2 sentences2005Those factors include “ ‘whether the plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith, whether he prosecuted his case diligently and vigorously, whether a procedural impediment exists which affects his ability to file a second action, and whether either party will be substantially prejudiced.’ ” Jepson, 164 Ariz. at 272 , 792 P.2d at 735 , quoting Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc., 160 Ariz. 187, 192 , 772 P.2d 10, 15 (App.1988) (emphasis added in Jepson). “ ‘The burden is on the plaintiff to present the particular circumstances that justify relief under § 12-501.’” Id., quotin 2005Those factors include “ ‘whether the plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith, whether he prosecuted his case diligently and vigorously, whether a procedural impediment exists which affects his ability to file a second action, and whether either party will be substantially prejudiced.’ ” Jepson, 164 Ariz. at 272 , 792 P.2d at 735 , quoting Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc., 160 Ariz. 187, 192 , 772 P.2d 10, 15 (App.1988) (emphasis added in Jepson). “ ‘The burden is on the plaintiff to present the particular circumstances that justify relief under § 12-501.’” Id., quotin | 2 | 2 |
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physiciansgreen2 sentences2005We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App.1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, ... the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencement has expired.” In Jepson , our supreme court articulated a set of factors a trial court must consider in determ 2005We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App.1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, ... the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencement has expired.” In Jepson , our supreme court articulated a set of factors a trial court must consider in determ | 2 | 2 |
Jepson v. Newgreen2 sentences2005Jepson v. New, 164 Ariz. 265, 274 , 792 P.2d 728, 737 (1990); Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 91, 859 P.2d at 201. 15 We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App. 1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, . . . the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencemen 2005Jepson v. New, 164 Ariz. 265, 274 , 792 P.2d 728, 737 (1990); Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 91, 859 P.2d at 201. 15 We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App. 1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, . . . the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencemen | 1 | 2 |
Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUMgreen2 sentences2005Jepson v. New, 164 Ariz. 265, 274 , 792 P.2d 728, 737 (1990); Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 91, 859 P.2d at 201. 15 We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App. 1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, . . . the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencemen 2005Jepson v. New, 164 Ariz. 265, 274 , 792 P.2d 728, 737 (1990); Copeland, 176 Ariz. at 91, 859 P.2d at 201. 15 We “will not disturb the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if it is supported by any reasonable evidence.” Schwartz v. Ariz. Primary Care Physicians, 192 Ariz. 290, 295-96 , 964 P.2d 491, 496-97 (App. 1998). ¶26 Section 12-504(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f an action timely commenced is terminated by abatement, . . . the court in its discretion may provide a period for commencement of a new action for the same cause, although the time otherwise limited for commencemen | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co.green1 sentence1978As stated in Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 191 F.2d 277 at 285-86 (8th Cir. 1951): “. . . the adequacy of a set of warnings or directions is not a scientific matter. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County
green
1 sentence2019The term does not refer to an exclusive set of factors; instead, it “establish[es] a standard which permits a trial judge flexibility in considering the unique circumstances of each termination case before determining the parent’s ability to discharge his or her parental responsibilities.” JS–5894, 145 Ariz. at 409 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Estate of Schmidt
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Parris
green
2 sentences1986In this case, the trial court analyzed the victim’s out-of-court statements to her mother by applying a set of factors specified by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Ryan, supra, and State v. Parris, 98 Wash.2d 140 , 654 P.2d 77 (1982). 8 The statute itself sets forth the factors to be considered in determining reliability: time, content and circumstances. 1986In this case, the trial court analyzed the victim’s out-of-court statements to her mother by applying a set of factors specified by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Ryan, supra, and State v. Parris, 98 Wash.2d 140 , 654 P.2d 77 (1982). 8 The statute itself sets forth the factors to be considered in determining reliability: time, content and circumstances. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.