Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cooper v. Odom, 433 P.2d 646.

28 citing documents.

Heshion v. Gentry Wealth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Heshion v. Gentry Wealth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sprinkle v. Neave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sprinkle v. Neave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 (App. 2011); (noting that “trial courts have the inherent power to dismiss a case on their own motion if the case has not been diligently prosecuted.”).
Saad v. Shinohara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Saad v. Shinohara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Adair v. Bajwa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Adair v. Bajwa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 41(b); (superior court has inherent power to dismiss case not prosecuted diligently).
Passmore v. McCarver 395 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Passmore v. McCarver 395 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
11 NORTH et al. v. VPS et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (dismissal for failure to prosecute) (); ¶ 10 (App. 2003) (determination that party failed to show good cause) ().
Faraji v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Faraji v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
To justify a dismissal for lack of prosecution, the record must reflect that the delay in prosecution demonstrates “either that the cause of action has been abandoned by plaintiff or else that it has resulted in injury to some[]one not responsible for the delay.”
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(noting trial court has the “inherent power to dismiss a case” when it has not been prosecuted).
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In this respect the discretion exercised by the trial court will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” , (internal citation omitted).
Department of Revenue v. Southern Union Gas Co. 582 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1978
Department of Revenue v. Southern Union Gas Co. 582 P.2d 158 Ariz. 1978
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., Rule 41(b)
Department of Revenue v. Southern Union Gas Co. 582 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Department of Revenue v. Southern Union Gas Co. 582 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
see, Rule 41 B, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; Rule V, Uniform Rules of Practice of the Superior Court, 17A A.R.S.
Taylor v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 474 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Taylor v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 474 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Troxler v. Holohan 451 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Troxler v. Holohan 451 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Long v. Arizona Portland Cement Co., 2 Ariz.App.