Legal Opinion

Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 20, 2005No. 2 CA-CV 2004-0209PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ESPINOSA, J.

¶ 1 Appellant James Rowland contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Kellogg, Brown and Root, Inc., and dismissing Rowland’s personal injury action on the ground that the applicable limitations period had elapsed before he had filed a valid complaint. We agree and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Summary

¶ 2 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., 198 Ariz. 173, 7 P.3d 979…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Porter v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  4. Estate of Nelson v. RiceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
  5. Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental QualityArizona Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Dube v. LikinsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  2. Mobilisa, Inc. v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  3. Tritschler v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  4. Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  5. Yes on Prop 200 v. NapolitanoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007

12 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