Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 871 P.2d 698.

122 citing documents.

Edward S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Edward S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Excusable neglect exists if the neglect or inadvertence “is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances.”
Wilson v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wilson v. Drake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Whether this concealment occurred and was sufficient to toll the statute of limitations is a factual dispute to be resolved by the fact finder.”); Anson v. Am.
Landell M. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Landell M. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Excusable neglect exists if the neglect or inadvertence occurs from the “act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances.” LANDELL M. v. DCS, N.M.
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Neglect is excusable “when it is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances.” (citation omitted).
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Assuming without deciding this is correct, “the test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.”
Michael T. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Michael T. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Decision of the Court or inadvertence occurs from the “act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances.”
Nicole M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nicole M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Euro v. lopez/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Euro v. lopez/special Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(Test of what is excusable and, hence, sufficient to set aside a default judgment is “whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.”); (carelessness is not synonymous with excusable neglect).
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evers v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., Inc., ); ¶ 22 (App. 2004) ().
Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Danica F. v. Dcs, G.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Danica F. v. Dcs, G.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(explaining “[n]eglect is excusable when it is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances”); Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“We recognize that where a client wil[l]fully or negligently fails to keep in touch with an attorney so
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To claim the benefit of tolling of a limitations period, “the burden is on the plaintiff to show the statute should be tolled.” (citation omitted).
Harris v. godaddy.com Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Harris v. godaddy.com Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
be equated”); Coconino Pulp & (overturning trial court’s refusal to set aside default judgment, supreme court noted when “undisputed facts and circumstances as shown in this case require a contrary ruling as a matter of law this court will reverse”); (concluding trial court abused discretion in not finding excusable neglect for party’s untimely response to motion for summary judgment; determining instead that party’s “conduct .
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Excusable neglect exists if the neglect or inadvertence “is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances.”
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151
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
¶ 31 “In ruling on a Rule 60(c) motion, the exercise of the court’s discretion must be *224 supported by facts or sound legal policy.”
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(‘When the record reveals circumstances that this court believes warrant relief, we can overturn the trial court’s discretionary ruling.”) 2 *189 II.
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
Doe v. Roe 955 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1998
the court then said that in addition to abuse, Plaintiff had to show her parents committed some affirmative act of concealment or induced her to refrain from filing the action.