Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phillips v. Garcia, 351 P.3d 1105.

40 citing documents.

SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 16 (App. 2015) (“[W]e conclude that entry of a true judgment [under Rule 76] requires an affirmative act by the court.”); (holding predecessor to present Rule 38.1, which governs dismissal of cases on the dismissal calendar, “is not self-executing”).
Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Wallace v. Irving Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[T]he plain meaning of the language” is “the most reliable indicator of the construction and meaning.” ¶ 9 (App. 2015).
North Shore v. Kwang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
North Shore v. Kwang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶9 “[U]nder appropriate circumstances,” this court may exercise special action jurisdiction “even when the parties have not requested such relief.” ¶ 6 (App. 2015); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction).
Amica v. Hemadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Amica v. Hemadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 76(d); ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (discussing the progression from arbitration award to appealable final judgment).
State v. Hon labianca/pedro 520 P.3d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hon labianca/pedro 520 P.3d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 6 (App. 2015) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DISCUSSION ¶9 “Special action jurisdiction is proper when a party has no ‘equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal[.]’” ¶ 6 (App. 2015) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
JURISDICTION ¶10 “Special action jurisdiction is proper when a party has no ‘equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal[.]’” ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Lux Property v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lux Property v. Hughes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Martinez v. Barba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Martinez v. Barba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
.’” ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (quoting Ariz. R.P.
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶13 Although we lack appellate jurisdiction to decide whether the court erred by denying Mother’s Rule 59 motion, we may nevertheless “exercise our discretionary special action jurisdiction under appropriate circumstances, even when the parties have not requested such relief.” ¶ 6 (App. 2015); see also A.R.S.
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
¶ 15 ; see also Phillips v. Garcia , , ¶¶ 16-17, ( Rule 76, Ariz. R. Civ.
Starr Pass Resort Devs., LLC v. Harrington 431 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Starr Pass Resort Devs., LLC v. Harrington 431 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Phillips v. Garcia , , ¶¶ 15-16
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Fuller 398 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orozco v. Alvarez-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Orozco v. Alvarez-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Mgmt., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2016); ¶ 13 (App. 2015).
Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Klesla v. Wittenberg 380 P.3d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-12, ¶ 14 , -10 (App. 2015) ("[Ojnce the arbitrator signs the award, he or she is divested of further jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted).
Southwest Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Management, Inc. 377 P.3d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Southwest Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Management, Inc. 377 P.3d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-12, ¶¶ 13-16 , (interpreting Rule 76(c) and noting that the rules “contemplate three steps leading to a judgment: the arbitrator’s notice of decision; the arbitrator’s award or other final disposition; and the superior court’s entry of judgment.”).
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶7 While the appeal was pending, we asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the following additional issues: 1) the applicability of Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (“ARCivP”) Rule 76(d) regarding whether the judgment sought by Jackson White was untimely and whether the case should be dismissed; 2) whether any such dismissal should be with or without prejudice; and 3) what measures, if any, would be available regarding the payment that DOS has already made to Jack

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by