Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue

7 Citing cases

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

    1 CA-TX 22-0008 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 4, 2023)

    It bars litigation not only of those facts that were litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25 (App. 2012). The party arguing for claim preclusion must establish (1) identity of the parties in the two suits, (2) identity of claims between the two suits, and (3) a final judgment on the merits in the first case.

  2. State v. Arnett

    235 Ariz. 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    ¶ 18 Arnett asserts that res judicata barred the instant litigation because ADEQ's claims against him could have been pursued in the previous litigation against Yellow Cab. When a judgment on the merits in one lawsuit involves the same parties or their privies as a subsequent lawsuit, res judicata bars assertion of the same cause of action in the subsequent lawsuit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25, 291 P.3d 369, 374 (App.2012). We review this issue de novo, see id. at ¶ 24, and, like the superior court, conclude that Arnett's argument fails because his misrepresentations regarding ownership of the UST resulted in ADEQ not pursing claims against him in the prior proceeding.

  3. A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani Cnty. Improvement Dist.

    233 Ariz. 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the superior court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce the attorneys' fee award further because the appellant did not "identify with any particularity what evidence supports a further reduction in fees beyond the reduction already granted by the trial court"

    Standard of Review ¶ 11 We review issues of law, such as application of res judicata principles and statutory interpretation, de novo. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 24, 291 P.3d 369, 374 (App.2012) (res judicata); Reeves v. Barlow, 227 Ariz. 38, 41, ¶ 12, 251 P.3d 417, 420 (App.2011) (statutory interpretation). “Our goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to legislative intent.”

  4. Vesper Props., L.L.C. v. Lindfors Longhorn Ranch, L.L.C.

    No. 1 CA-CV 20-0315 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2021)

    ¶12 Under claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177 ¶ 25 (App. 2012). A judgment is final for purposes of claim preclusion if the judgment is not "tentative, provisional, or contingent and represents the completion of all steps in the adjudication of the claim by the court."

  5. Arik Co. v. RGO LLC

    No. 1 CA-CV 20-0280 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2021)

    It bars litigation not only of those facts that were litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25 (App. 2012). The party arguing for claim preclusion must establish three elements:

  6. Bishara v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    No. 1 CA-CV 16-0176 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    ¶12 Under claim preclusion, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same causes of action. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177 ¶ 25 (App. 2012). Claim preclusion bars litigation not only of those facts that were actually litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit.

  7. Siete Solar L L C v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue

    TX 2014-000212 (Ariz. Tax Ct. Apr. 24, 2017)

    The same principle applies here. Although Plaintiffs are correct that every new tax year stands on its own, Stearns v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 178 (App. 2012), that does not prevent preclusion of issues common to the two actions. As to the Plaintiffs that were parties to the earlier litigation, they had a full and fair opportunity and motive to litigate the issues, and their counsel undoubtedly did so with the same skill that they have consistently displayed before this Court.