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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2026Where, as here, we apply the doctrine to decisions in the same court, “we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.” Id. ¶31 A horizontal appeal is when a party “requests a second trial judge to reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Id. at 278–79. 2026Where, as here, we apply the doctrine to decisions in the same court, “we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.” Id. ¶31 A horizontal appeal is when a party “requests a second trial judge to reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Id. at 278–79. | 3 | 5 |
Hall v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr 2020See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317, ¶¶ 28-29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr | 1 | 1 |
Zimmerman v. Shakmangreen1 sentence2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr | 1 | 1 |
Dunlap v. City of Phoenixgreen2 sentences2013Moreover, because Judge Mangum ruled correctly on the substance of the issue, "it would be folly to reverse on this ground[.]” Dunlap v. City of Phoenix, 169 Ariz. 63, 66 , 817 P.2d 8, 11 (App.1990); see also Powell-Cerkoney, 176 Ariz. at 278 , 860 P.2d at 1331 ("[W]e treat [the] law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”). . 2013Moreover, because Judge Mangum ruled correctly on the substance of the issue, "it would be folly to reverse on this ground[.]” Dunlap v. City of Phoenix, 169 Ariz. 63, 66 , 817 P.2d 8, 11 (App.1990); see also Powell-Cerkoney, 176 Ariz. at 278 , 860 P.2d at 1331 ("[W]e treat [the] law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”). . | 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.