DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 505 P.2d 1383.

43 citing documents.

  • Preferred v. Dimova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See Safeway Stores, (“[T]he requirement .
  • Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Safeway Stores, – 13 (1973) (explaining that when a plaintiff failed to sign her complaint, she failed to “submit to the jurisdiction of the court” and thus the complaint had “no legal significance”).
  • Opuroku v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Opuroku v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    The case law Opuroku relies on, Safeway Stores, –13 (1973), does not apply because it concerned a judicial, not administrative, proceeding.
  • Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Co. of Am., ¶ 11 (App. 2001); ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (citing Safeway Stores, ).
  • Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    were diligently pursuing discovery and where dismissal would bar their claims because of statute of limitations); (no good cause despite defendants having been aware of potential lawsuit and plaintiffs having made unsuccessful attempts to serve defendants, who resided in China); Safeway Stores, (plaintiff’s excuses of illness and bankruptcy did not constitute good cause); -83, -06 (1973) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find good cause where service was made four days afte
  • Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    See Safeway Stores, P.2d 1383 (1973).
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (Kaliff), , (“The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable nor is it even reviewable upon appeal from the final judgment, except under very unusual circumstances.”) (citation omitted).
  • Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Family Care, , 154, , 1285 (1997)); Safeway Stores, , (special action jurisdiction appropriate to review purely legal question as to applicability of statute of limitations to undisputed facts when correct ruling would avoid expense and delay of unnecessary trial).
  • Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    See Safeway Stores, , (special action jurisdiction appropriate to review purely legal question as to applicability of statute of limitations to undisputed facts when correct ruling would avoid expense and *546 delay of unnecessary trial).
  • Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
  • Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
    See Safeway Stores, , (complaint dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiff inexcusably delayed and the defendant did not receive notice of the action and was prejudiced by the delay); Peters v. M & O Constr.
  • Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    Peters v. M & O Construction, Inc., , Safeway Stores, , Annot.
  • State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cy. 681 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cy. 681 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1984
    We accepted the state’s petition for review of that decision, finding that because the denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonappealable order, , 117 n. 1, , the petitioner has no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal, see Ariz.R.P.
  • Dicenso v. BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING CO., ETC. 643 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1982
  • Dicenso v. BRYANT AIR CONDITIONING CO., ETC. 643 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1982
    Safeway Stores, , Taylor v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.App.
  • Bailey v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 636 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Bailey v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 636 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    We believe special action intervention is appropriate since the challenged ruling is erroneous as a matter of law, Safeway Stores, , and we therefore accept jurisdiction.
  • Galaz v. Vinyard 627 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Galaz v. Vinyard 627 P.2d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Parish v. Truman 603 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Parish v. Truman 603 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Safeway Stores, , Warinner v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 21 Ariz.App.
  • Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Watts v. State 566 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    The State attempts to analogize this case to Safeway Stores, , in which there was an attempt by way of an amendment to substitute an entirely new complaint for one invalidly signed by an improper representative.
  • Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    O’Day v. George Arakelian Farms, Inc., , , Safeway Stores, , *249 (1973); Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 12 Ariz.App.
  • Cook v. Cook 547 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Cook v. Cook 547 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Pima County v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Pima County v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Warinner v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 519 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Warinner v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 519 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    453 , as modified by Safeway Stores