Miller v. McAlister

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding one party is still entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings even though the opposing party made the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 52
• discussing requirement that adverse possession be proved by “clear and positive evidence, which is 17 BECK, ET AL. V. NEVILLE, ET AL. Opinion of the Court analogous to the rigorous ‘clear and convincing’ standard of proof”
• specifically holding that the trial court must make findings of fact if the remedy sought is a preliminary injunction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-07-24· cited 102×
• In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2000-12-21· cited 62×
• Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1993-07-22· cited 30×
• Miller v. Board of Supervisors
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1993-07-22· cited 14×
• Reed v. Reed
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-06-25· cited 12×
• Anderson v. Contes
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-03-08· cited 11×
• Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-05-15· cited 8×
• Francine C. v. Dcs
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2020-06-23
• Beck v. Neville
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2024-01-09