Legal Opinion

Portonova v. Wilkinson

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1981No. 15070PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAYS, Justice.

This appeal stems from an order of the Maricopa County Superior Court granting defendant-appellees’ (hereinafter called defendant) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter called plaintiff) sought to recover damages for defamation and for violation of her right of privacy. Taking jurisdiction pursuant to 17A A.R.S. Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, rule 19(e), we vacate the order of the trial court and remand.

Before we set out the facts giving rise to this appeal, we note that review of a decision to grant summary judgment requires us to view evidence in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Barr v. MatteoSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Sato v. Van DenburghArizona Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Sheehan v. TobinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  4. Nuyen v. SlaterMichigan Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Jabczenski v. Southern Pacific Memorial Hospitals, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1978

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Green Acres Trust v. LondonArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Carlson v. Pima CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  4. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. Schroeder v. HudginsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API