DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Davis, 985 P.2d 643.

28 citing documents.

  • Esparza v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Esparza v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    5 POTTER v. EHRICH Decision of the Court a higher appellate court.” ¶ 13 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    5 STATE v. YOUNG Opinion of the Court ¶19 Under the law of the case, a court will not “reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” ¶ 8 (App. 2004) ( ¶ 13 (App. 1999)).
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    However, it is well-settled that a “superior court judge cannot review or change the judgment of another superior court judge [once] the judgment has become ‘final.’” ¶ 22 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1999)).
  • Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “[A] superior court judge has no jurisdiction to review or change the judgment of another superior court judge when the judgment has become ‘final.’” ¶ 11 (App. 1999); see also Bogard v. Cannon & Wendt Elec.
  • Lewis v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lewis v. Lynch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).
  • Fnma v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Fnma v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (“‘Law of the case concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.’”)
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    § 12-2101(A)(5)(a), which allows an appeal from an order “[granting or refusing a new trial, or granting a motion in arrest of judgment.” , -47 (App.1999).
  • Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    10 ¶ 26 It is well settled that “a superior court judge has no jurisdiction to review or change the judgment of another superior court judge when the judgment has become ‘final.’ ” ¶ 11 , (citation omitted); , (citation omitted) (“When a final judgment is involved one superior court judge has no jurisdiction to review or change the judgment of another superior court judge.”); Dunla
  • Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Hall v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    This case was superseded by rule on other grounds
  • State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Whelan 91 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    “ ‘Law of the case’ concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” ¶ 13 , (quoting Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , ) (emphasis added).