Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Santa Maria v. Najera, 214 P.3d 394.

28 citing documents.

  • 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