6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Old West Bonding Co.green2 sentences2020Old West, 203 Ariz. at 475, ¶ 26 . ¶10 Here, Appellants do not dispute that Arias-Saldana failed to appear for the second day of trial, and they instead underscore an absence of evidence regarding the Old West factors. 2014Old West, 203 Ariz. at 475, ¶ 26 , 56 P.3d at 49 . ¶13 The record does not reflect the trial court was unaware of the Old West factors, ignored evidence, or misinterpreted the applicable rules. | 3 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. and Regulator Bail Bondsgreen1 sentence2020See Int’l Fid., 238 Ariz. at 25, ¶ 9 . ¶11 The court then considered and weighed the Old West factors and found “insufficient evidence in mitigation or hardship.” Although DDI asserts “no factor carries more weight than the effort and expense expended by the surety to locate and apprehend the defendant,” Old West does not indicate this factor outweighs the rest. | 1 | 1 |
Orme School v. Reevesgreen2 sentences2016P. 56(a); Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 305 , 802 P.2d 1000, 1004 (1990). ¶10 Valenzuela argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting West’s motion for summary judgment because she never received West’s request for admissions; thus, in her view, the court erred in relying upon the facts deemed admitted by her failure to respond. ¶11 To support her contention that she never received the Rule 36 requests, Valenzuela relies on a letter and mail log that lists her incoming mail at the Buckeye facility. 2016P. 56(a); Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 305 , 802 P.2d 1000, 1004 (1990). ¶10 Valenzuela argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting West’s motion for summary judgment because she never received West’s request for admissions; thus, in her view, the court erred in relying upon the facts deemed admitted by her failure to respond. ¶11 To support her contention that she never received the Rule 36 requests, Valenzuela relies on a letter and mail log that lists her incoming mail at the Buckeye facility. | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Robotkagreen2 sentences2016See Berry v. Robotka, 9 Ariz. App. 461, 466 , 453 P.2d 972, 977 (1969) (stating that the opponent to a motion for summary judgment cannot simply rest on her pleadings, but instead must “come forward with a showing that there is competent evidence so as to create a factual issue for the trier of fact”). ¶14 Accordingly, on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting West’s motion for summary judgment. 2016See Berry v. Robotka, 9 Ariz. App. 461, 466 , 453 P.2d 972, 977 (1969) (stating that the opponent to a motion for summary judgment cannot simply rest on her pleadings, but instead must “come forward with a showing that there is competent evidence so as to create a factual issue for the trier of fact”). ¶14 Accordingly, on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting West’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan
green
1 sentence2026See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(3), -1383(A)(3)(a); see also A.R.S. § 13-3401(4)(b); Shilgevorkyan, 234 Ariz. at 343 , ¶ 1 n.1. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2021In rejecting West’s claim, the court noted that Klokic’s multiple-acts analysis could apply to an alternative-means statute if the State “charges the defendant with one offense . . . “and then alleges multiple, distinct acts as to the separate means.” Id. at 494, ¶ 40. ¶16 Attempting to avoid its error here, the State cites State v. Rivera, 207 Ariz. 69 (App. 2004), and argues that because A.R.S. § 28-1381 is an alternative-means statute, Klokic’s multiple-acts analysis is inapplicable. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp.
green
1 sentence2016The court noted that an extension to September 21 had already been granted; accordingly, the court took no action concerning the latest request. 9 Valenzuela filed an untimely response to the motion for summary judgment on the same day the court issued its order. 4 VALENZUELA v. WEST Decision of the Court 134, 137 n.2, ¶ 7, 263 P.3d 683 , 686 n.2 (App. 2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.