DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Camasura v. Camasura, 358 P.3d 600.

24 citing documents.

  • Pike v. Vanderhyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • White v. Newby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Crane v. Crane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Crane v. Crane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    for Airborne Relief, Inc., () (“A final judgment or decree decides and disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving no question open for judicial determination.”); ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (An order is final and appealable “if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.”).
  • Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Ostering v. Ostering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Ostering v. Ostering Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    “This court has an independent duty to examine whether we have jurisdiction over matters on appeal.” ¶ 5 (App. 2015).
  • Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Green v. Rhoads Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Green v. Rhoads Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    3 GREEN v. RHOADS Decision of the Court A. Jurisdiction Issues ¶11 “This court has an independent duty to examine whether we have jurisdiction over matters on appeal.” ¶ 5 (App. 2015).
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 4 (App. 2019) (explaining an appellate court has an independent duty to examine its jurisdiction to consider matters on appeal) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2015)).
  • Colosi v. Nacim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Colosi v. Nacim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    -83, ¶¶ 9-16 (App. 2015); ¶ 19 (App. 2013).
  • Robertson v. Buckner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Robertson v. Buckner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    -82, ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (holding a final order disposes of all claims or includes an appropriate certification under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 78(B)).
  • Ochoa v. Bojorquez 431 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Ochoa v. Bojorquez 431 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    Camasura v. Camasura , , ¶ 5
  • Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    JURISDICTION ¶4 “This court has an independent duty to examine whether we have jurisdiction over matters on appeal.” ¶ 5 (App. 2015) (citing Sorensen v. Farmers Ins.
  • Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -83, ¶¶ 12-16 (App. 2015) (holding that ARCAP 9(c) does not apply to an order entered but leaving a request for attorneys’ fees for later decision).