Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gabriel Ex Rel. Gabriel v. Murphy, 421 P.2d 336.

26 citing documents.

Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Marquette, 227 Ariz. at 183- 84, ¶¶ 13, 22; (“[A] motion for new trial must be made before the scope of the appeal may be enlarged to include the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or judgment.”).
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
beyond the matters assigned as error in the motion for new trial.’” ()).
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., , , 111 n. 9, ¶ 27, , 228 n. 9 (App.2006); , (“[A] motion for new trial must be made before the scope of the appeal may be enlarged to include the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or judgment.”).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
beyond the matters assigned as error in the motion for new trial.”
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 969 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1998
Acknowledging that there was merit to the correctable approach
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 962 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Boydston v. Strole Development Co. 962 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(“Before this court may have jurisdiction to consider a matter on appeal, an appellant must comply with the rules and statutes concerning appeals”).
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Van Dusen v. Registrar of Contractors 472 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Van Dusen v. Registrar of Contractors 472 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hanen v. Willis 444 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Hanen v. Willis 444 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
in effect, abandon his right for extension of time gained as a result of hav-ing the order in relation to his motion for new trial reduced to written form, and timely appeal from the judgment alone, and in doing so appellant may raise on appeal from said judgment, errors urged in the motion for new trial.” 443
Sahlin v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA. 423 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sahlin v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA. 423 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
This is an appeal by the defendant, Gibraltar Escrow Company, from a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. Procedural problems which were -presented have been resolved by our recent opinion in the case of Gabriel v. Murphy, decided 14 Decern *492 her 1966, , , and they need not be repeated here.