Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arvizu v. Fernandez, 902 P.2d 830.

60 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
To be appealable, a special order after judgment must raise different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment; it must affect the underlying judgment, relate to its enforcement, or stay its execution; and it must not be “merely ‘preparatory’ to a later proceeding that might affect the judgment or its enforcement.” -27 , -33 (1995), quoting Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus., 6 Cal.4th 644 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 109
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-27 , -33 (App. 1995) (to be appealable, post-judgment order must raise issqes different from those that could have arisen from an appeal from an underlying judgment; this argument prevents a delayed appeal from the judgment).