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