Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Santa Maria v. Najera, 214 P.3d 394.
- Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
They note that statutes outlining appellate jurisdiction have been interpreted “in favor of finality,” and some historical construction of the statute.
- Harris v. Behnke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Harris v. Behnke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Aloia v. Biological Resource
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 54(b); see also Stevens, 90 Ariz. at 44–45 (noting that the rule requires “the determination and direction,” else the judgment is not final and not immediately appealable); ¶ 6 (App. 2009); (reiterating that “the lack of a 54(b) determination defeats finality”); ¶ 17 & n.3 (App. 2006) (suggesting, in dicta, that a statement of “no just reason for delay” and direction to enter judgment would qu
- Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Yee v. Yee
484 P.3d 650
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Given 6 which held there is no jurisdiction to review a ruling on a motion for new trial directed to a partial summary judgment ruling unless such a ruling contains Civil Rule 54(b) language, does not compel a different result.
- Cavness v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Cavness v. Wilson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶¶ 12-13 (App. 2009) (holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review post-summary judgment order denying a motion for new trial because the summary judgment order was not final); ¶ 26 (App. 2003) (“A party may not create access to appellate review merely by filing a
- Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Petrocelli v. Anderson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (App. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2009).
- Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC
380 P.3d 659
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
308 ¶ 9, (“[W]e must look to the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from to ascertain jurisdiction in any particular case.”) (citation omitted).
-
State v. Zarco
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 12-2101(A)(5)(a)], we must look to the ‘character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from’ to ascertain [appellate] jurisdiction in any particular case.” ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (citation omitted); see also id.
- Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Jaynes v. McConnell
358 P.3d 632
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 , (holding that a judgment leaving two of five claims undecided and lacking Rule 54(b) certification was merely interlocutory, rather than final); see also Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 A-iz.
- In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
In Re the Marriage of Kassa
299 P.3d 1290
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See Maria v. Najera, 222 Ariz. 306, ¶¶ 6-7, (under Rule 54(b), Ariz. R. Civ.
- Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-
Johnson v. Gravino
293 P.3d 504
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Pursuant to § 12- 2101(A)(1), we have jurisdiction for an appeal “[f]rom a final judgment,” which is one that “‘dispose[s] of all claims and all parties.’”
- Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
that “‘dispose[s] of all claims and all parties,’”
- Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. America West Airlines, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
- Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. America West Airlines, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
- Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011