Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n, 694 P.2d 1213.

49 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Lazzara v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lazzara v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
& Loan Ass’n, (analyzing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 59); see also Watson v. Ford, 1 CA-CV 21- 0193 FC, 2022 WL 1223811, at *3, ¶ 15 (Ariz. App. Apr.
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez 537 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez 537 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
& Loan Ass’n, -02 (App. 1984).
Watson v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Watson v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
& Loan Ass’n, (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review matters not contained in the Notice of Appeal.”).
Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
& Loan Ass’n, see also Ariz. R. Fam.
Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thompson v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Savings & Loan Ass’n, (stating that this court lacks jurisdiction to review matters not contained in the notice of appeal (citations omitted)).
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶18 For example, in Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association, P.2d 1213 (App. 1984), the court held it had jurisdiction only to review the issues raised in a Rule 59 motion when the notice of appeal referenced only that motion.
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Berkley v. Koenig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n, (stating that a court will only grant a new trial if it appears the newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered earlier by exercise of due diligence).
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n, (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review matters not contained in the Notice of Appeal.”).
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
and Loan Ass’n, (“[I]n reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial, this court may not go beyond the matters assigned as error in the motion.”).
Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 297 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 297 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
& Loan Ass’n, , 601 n. 2, , 1215 n. 2 (App.1984).
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
& Loan Ass'n, , ("If [newly discovered evidence] was in the possession of the party before the judgment was rendered, however, it is not newly discovered for the purposes of the rule and does not entitle the party to relief.").
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
& Loan Ass’n, (“This court lacks jurisdiction to review matters not contained in the Notice of Appeal.”).
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
303 , (2) the evidence must not have been possessed by the party seeking relief, , Roberts ; (3) that party must not have known of the evidence, Lawless v. St.
Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Co., , Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Don 799 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Don 799 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association