S&S Paving & Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co.

16 Citing cases

  1. Rosenberg v. Sanders

    512 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Noting "the McCauley factors are not exclusive"

    ¶13 Rosenberg argues the court erroneously granted summary judgment to Sanders. We review de novo whether summary judgment was appropriate, Am. Furniture Warehouse Co. v. Town of Gilbert , 245 Ariz. 156, 159, ¶ 9, 425 P.3d 1099, 1102 (App. 2018), and will "affirm the judgment if it is correct for any reason," S & S Paving & Const., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co. , 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7, 372 P.3d 1036, 1038 (App. 2016). ¶14 Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

  2. Mesquite Power, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue

    252 Ariz. 74 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Because we affirm the tax court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, we need not address the dismissal as a matter of jurisdiction. See S&S Paving and Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co. , 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7, 372 P.3d 1036, 1038 (App. 2016). C. Mesquite's Other Claims and Pleas for Relief Also Are Forfeited.

  3. Everson v. Tucci

    No. 1 CA-CV 20-0202 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2020)

    Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a); S & S Paving & Const., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). It is also appropriate where the facts supporting a claim "have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required," that no reasonable person could find for its proponent.

  4. In re 3567 East Alvord Road

    249 Ariz. 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    We need not decide whether the correct burden of proof was applied because the state would have met its burden under either standard and we will affirm a grant of summary judgment if correct for any reason. S & S Paving & Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co. , 239 Ariz. 512, ¶ 7, 372 P.3d 1036 (App. 2016). ¶10 Here, the state alleged Shonk had committed a racketeering offense because he was involved in the sale of a prohibited drug for financial gain.

  5. Simpson v. Simpson (In re The Simpson Family Tr.)

    2 CA-CV 2022-0094 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023)

    We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason. S &S Paving &Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). If the party opposing a motion for summary judgment fails to file affidavits or other items listed in Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P., in opposition to the motion, the facts stated in the moving party's affidavits are uncontroverted and are accepted as true.

  6. Saenz v. Campos

    1 CA-CV 20-0663 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2021)

    ¶5 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. S &S Paving &Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

  7. Pillsbury v. Butler

    No. 1 CA-CV 20-0187 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2021)

    We will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is correct for any reason. S&S Paving and Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).¶16 In ruling on Butler's declaratory judgment and partition claims, the court determined that the parties shared equal ownership of both properties and that they both intended to use the proceeds from the sale of the 53rd Way home to repay Butler for purchasing the 27th Street property.

  8. Acedo v. Mannion

    No. 1 CA-CV 20-0017 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2020)

    ¶5 Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. S & S Paving & Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We review questions of law de novo but review the facts in a light most favorable to Esquer.

  9. Am. Fed'n v. City of Phoenix

    No. 1 CA-CV 18-0027 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 21, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, "viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered," First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Johnson Bank, 239 Ariz. 348, 350, ¶ 8 (2016), and "will affirm the judgment if it is correct for any reason," S & S Paving & Constr., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). A. The Plan's Plain Language

  10. Leschyshyn v. Patel

    No. 1 CA-CV 18-0402 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2019)

    We review the superior court's grant of summary judgment de novo and "will affirm the judgment if it is correct for any reason." S & S Paving & Const., Inc. v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co., 239 Ariz. 512, 514, ¶ 7 (App. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."