DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUM, 859 P.2d 196.

28 citing documents.

  • Olen v. Couch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    1 see also Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (stating that we reverse a superior court’s order denying relief under Rule 60 for an abuse of 1City of Phoenix v. Geyler discusses Rule 60(c), but Rule 60(c) is now modified as Rule 60(b).
  • Eli v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    To prevail under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must also show “substantial prejudice.” See Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.
  • Aea Federal v. Yuma Funding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (relevant factors under former Rule 60(c)(6), now Rule 60(b)(6), include “substantial prejudice” unless relief is granted).
  • Dominguez v. National Shotcrete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Asphalt & Grading Co. v. CMX, L.L.C., ¶ 11 (2011); see also Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.
  • Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 21 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 9 (App. 1998), and Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum, ).
  • Passmore v. McCarver 395 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 11 (2006); Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.
  • Valenzuela v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (quoting Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem'l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr, ).
  • Young v. Orange Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.
  • Faraji v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 16, (two and a half years); Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (fourteen months).
  • Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr.
  • Beltz v. Greystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 14, (appellate court reviews superior court’s order of dismissal for lack of prosecution for abuse of discretion); Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (appellate court reviews superior court’s denial of relief under either Rule 60(c) or A.R.S.
  • Lanza v. Holladay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See, e.g., Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., –91 (App. 1993) (affirming denial of Rule 60(c) motion where plaintiff “did not even argue, and certainly made no showing, that he possesses a meritorious claim”).
  • Eastwood v. Atlas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    e Eastwood failed to sustain his 5 EASTWOOD v. ATLAS et al. Decision of the Court burden of proving circumstances justifying relief under the savings statute, the superior court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying his request.6 See Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum & Exposition Ctr., (holding that an order denying relief under the savings clause is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Ctr., , (reviewing a trial court’s order under Rule 60(c) for an abuse of discretion).
  • American Asphalt & Grading Co. v. CMX, L.L.C. 253 P.3d 1240 Ariz. 2011
  • American Asphalt & Grading Co. v. CMX, L.L.C. 253 P.3d 1240 Ariz. 2011
    Rather, we adopt the approach taken in Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum & Exposition Center
  • Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    Copeland v. Ariz. Veterans Mem’l Coliseum
  • Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Mem’l Coliseum, , 89, , 199 (App.1993).
  • 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
    Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Mem’l Coliseum and Exposition Ctr.
  • 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
    Although the court is not required to give Plaintiff notice before dismissing an action, notice is a factor to be considered “within the ‘totality of the circumstances.’”
  • Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court 863 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Distinguished Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court 863 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    as support for the trial court action here, but that case is distinguishable.