Cited by

or court could exercise special action jurisdiction over constitutional claim after plaintiff mistakenly alleged jurisdiction under the Act); –50, ¶¶ 6, 9 (1998) (considering whether court of appeals had to dismiss appeal from final judgment where notice of appeal was filed by corporation rather than counsel); McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc. (considering effect of notice of appeal that referenced unappealable order rather than underlying judgment).

¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2004); accord McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc.

Rosner, 188 Ariz. at 433 (emphasis added); cf. McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., (upholding allocation of fault to a nonparty in mode-of-operation case against grocer without deciding whether evidence was sufficient to support fault of unknown person who dropped piece of paper on which plaintiff slipped); (jury allowed to consider fault of uni

Rosner, 188 Ariz. at 433 , 937 P.2d at 355 (emphasis added); cf. McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. , , (upholding allocation of fault to a nonparty in mode-of-operation case against grocer without deciding whether evidence was sufficient to support fault of unknown person who dropped piece of paper on which plaintiff slipped); Smith v. Johnson , , (jury a

Taking Baron’s three remaining notices of appeal together and reviewing them liberally, see McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., we gather that he intends to appeal the rulings set forth above, as well as a handful of collateral rulings.

Absent prejudice to appellee, we treat an appellant’s attempt “to appeal from the denial of a [non-appealable order] that attacked an underlying judgment,” as an “attempt[] to appeal from the judgment itself.” McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., (holding that a notice of appeal which referred only to the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, rather than the underlying judgment, sufficiently invoked appellate jurisdiction because it was neither misleading nor prejudicial

-73, ¶ 10, -03 (1999) (holding a defective notice of appeal should be construed as sufficient so long as the defect has neither misled nor prejudiced an opposing party); McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., (stating court reviews notices of appeal liberally, disregarding harmless technical errors in favor of disposition on the merits).

See McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., (This court “review[s] notices of appeal liberally, disregarding technical, 2Doyle also alleged claims against two other defendants, and the superior court granted summary judgment for the other defendants.

merits of the appeal.’” (absent prejudice to appellee, “technical defects or omissions in a notice of appeal are usually not jurisdictional”); McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., -63, 945 14 palatable or even preferable, this court is bound by applicable decisions of our supreme court and has no authority to modify or disregard them.

asors, with abrogation of joint liability, established system “making each tortfeasor responsible for paying his or her percentage of fault, and no more”)); see also Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 55, ¶21 , 961 P.2d at 453 (jury appropriately allocated “responsibility” for two deaths between killer and municipality obliged to attempt to prevent killings); see also McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., -65 , -76 (App.1997) (comparing store’s fault in slip and fall ease with fault of unknown person who

See Hill, 193 Ariz. at 574, ¶ 18 , 975 P.2d at 704 ; see also McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., , (“In the absence of prejudice to the appellee, we will proceed ...

Moreover, Arizona courts repeatedly have “rejected the argument that defendants with preventative responsibilities may not shift fault to persons whose conduct they should have [anticipated and] prevented from causing harm.” McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu Inc., , and cases cited therein.

We liberally construe notices of appeal “ ‘if the result is neither misleading nor prejudicial to the appellees involved.’” McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., , ( , ).

See McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., -64, 945 ,P.2d 372, 374-375 (App. 1997).

See McKillip v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.