DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., 942 P.2d 1178.

26 citing documents.

  • Ashby v. Biglow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Ashby v. Biglow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340; –60 (1984) (legal error in believing an answer is not required when an action is filed in a county other than county of residence is not excusable neglect); – 51, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2005) (a failure to serve based on ignorance of Rule 4(i) is not excusable neglect); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’s, Inc., (a secretary’s failure to understand timing rule is not excusable neglect, but legal error).
  • Southwest Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Management, Inc. 377 P.3d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Southwest Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Management, Inc. 377 P.3d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 12 Southwest argues the arbitration award was not final and therefore, absent excusable neglect, see Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’ns, Inc., , , 33 n. 4, ¶ 21, could not be set aside under Rule 60(c).
  • Black v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Black v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶9 This court considered a similar situation in Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc. P.2d 1178 (App. 1997).
  • Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    30, 2014), and Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’ns, Inc.
  • Granville v. Howard 335 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    In Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’ns, Inc., -50 , -82 (App.1997), we stated: Neither Rule 7(f) nor AR.S.
  • Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    See Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’ns, Inc., , (referring to former arbitration rule and A.R.S.
  • 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
    (“[Ujnder Arizona’s system of compulsory but non-binding arbitration, any party who appears and participates in the arbitration proceedings and who timely appeals from the award is entitled to a trial de novo on the law and facts.”); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’ns, Inc., , (“An appeal from compulsory arbitration is therefore not a request for review; it is a demand for [a] trial de novo.”).
  • Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶22 “Neglect is excusable if it ‘might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.’” Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’s, Inc., quoting Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 331, 697 P.2d at 1081.
  • State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commun., Inc.
  • Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    See Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., , (neither Uniform Rule 7(f) nor § 12-133(1) applies in court of appeals to claims for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal from superior court).
  • Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc.
  • 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
    Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., , *489
  • Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc.