Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Acker v. CSO CHEVIRA, 934 P.2d 816.

29 citing documents.

  • Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Goodrich v. Haeussler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (noting that when court dismisses complaint "by invoking its inherent authority to dismiss frivolous actions, it should make findings which explain its action").
  • State Bar v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State Bar v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶8 The superior court has authority to exercise “such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction.” (citation omitted).
  • Gallarzo v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. 429 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Gallarzo v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. 429 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    at 577-78, ¶ 23 , 177 P.3d at 319-20 (holding that inherent authority extended to consolidated cases only, and not to cases involving similarly affected parties not made part of the consolidating proceeding); Acker v. CSO Chevira , , 254-55, , 818-19 (App. 1997) (defining inherent authority as "such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction," and holding that exercise of the unwritten powers must be justified with particularity (citation omitted) ).
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    554, ¶¶ 4, 22, 597 (App. 2001) (affirming trial court's dismissal even though defendant had not filed motion to dismiss).
  • Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    n. 3, ¶ 4, n. 3 (App. 2008) (noting the superior court has inherent authority to take actions necessary to effectuate the administration of justice in pending cases); (noting that “[a] court’s inherent authority may be defined as such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (App. 3At no time did the Callies move to amend their pleading.
  • Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (defining a court’s inherent authority as “such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction”); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1990) (recognizing strong precedent establishing inherent authority of federal courts “to regulate the
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    (“Before a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted, the nonmoving party should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment will cure its defects.”).
  • Sensing v. Harris 172 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Sensing v. Harris 172 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona)
  • Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (defining inherent authority “as such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction”) (citation omitted).
  • Carlisle v. Petrosky 131 P.3d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Carlisle v. Petrosky 131 P.3d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Ct., -48 , (The court’s “inherent powers may be defined as such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted); , (same).
  • Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    (-48 , ) (“A court’s inherent authority ‘may be defined as such powers as are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction.’ ”).
  • Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998