DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., 791 P.2d 665.

68 citing documents.

  • Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Eaton v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 79 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    (“motions for relief from final judgments based on neglect must be filed under Rule 60(c)(1), not 60(c)(6)”); M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (relief under Rule 60(c)(6) not precluded by absence of excusable neglect).
  • McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (order denying motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(c) appealable as a “special order made after final judgment” under A.R.S.
  • Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Therefore, the judgment setting aside that dismissal was a “special order made after final judgment.” See Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(C); see also M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (order setting aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(c) is appealable pursuant to A.R.S.
  • Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    See M & M Auto Storage Pool v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (“An order denying or granting a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, is appealable as a ‘special order made after final judgment.’ A.R.S.
  • Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    ration from entry of summary judgment is appealable); -03 , 196 P. 167, 169 (1921) (order reinstating case after being dismissed for lack of prosecution is the same as an order vacating an order of dismissal, and has the same effect as the reversal of a judgment and is appealable); M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (order denying or granting motion to set aside judgment is appealable); Gibbons v. Badger Mut.
  • Chavez v. Copper State Rubber of Arizona, Inc. 897 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Chavez v. Copper State Rubber of Arizona, Inc. 897 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    See M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
  • Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (counsel’s erroneous belief that no judgment could be taken if an answer was filed before a motion for default judgment not legally excusable); M & M Auto Storage Pool v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (counsel’s view that dismissal of motions for summary judgment constituted final resolution not legally excusable).
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993