Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stoddard v. Donahoe, 228 P.3d 144.

54 citing documents.

  • viirl/piazzisi v. Moen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Because civil contempt orders, sanctions included, are not appealable, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Trombi, 223 Ariz. at 265 ¶ 14), the Company has no remedy by appeal.
  • Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (contempt order); ¶ 16 n.8 (App. 2012) (vexatious-litigant orders issued within a single case constitute injunctive relief); Flying Diamond Airpark, ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (“We review a trial court’s grant of injunctive relief for
  • Hofstetter v. Hofstetter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Bybee v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    BYBEE v. CIENFUEGOS Decision of the Court 154, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Boettcher v. Boettcher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Treptow v. Vitellaro-Martorell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Our jurisdiction is limited to that specifically provided by statute, Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2019), and “contempt and civil sanctions are not appealable,” ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Stoddard v. Donahoe, 2 STATE BAR v. PAPA Decision of the Court ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Contempt orders are not generally appealable, ¶ 7 (App. 2010), but because the contempt ruling resulted in a final order of dismissal, it is appealable as a final order under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 12-2101.
  • Dawson v. Dawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Dawson v. Dawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We generally review this type of fee award for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 9 (App. 2010), although we review de novo the legal basis for the award.
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Soetan v. Soetan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Soetan v. Soetan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“A special action petition is the appropriate method to challenge a civil contempt order because the finding of contempt and civil sanctions are not appealable.”).
  • Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    We defer to the superior court’s findings of fact unless those findings are “clearly erroneous.” -55, ¶ 9 (App. 2010).
  • State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, ¶ 7 (App. 2010); Ariz. R.P.
  • Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 23 (App. 2010) (alteration in original) ( ¶ 11 (App. 1999) (because the applicability of an immunity statute, which could have resolved the case on nonconstitutional grounds, was not before the Goodman court, the court addressed constitutional argume
  • Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “An order holding a party in contempt for refusing to obey a court order is not appealable and may only be reviewed through special action.” BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bluff, ¶ 5 (App. 2012); ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See also BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bluff, ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (finding that a challenge to a civil contempt order should be made by special action); ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
  • Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson 390 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    (sanctions); , (contempt).
  • Chambers v. Fox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Chambers v. Fox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 7 (App. 2010); Elia, 194 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 30.
  • Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 7 (App. 2010); Elia, 194 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 30.
  • Hatfield v. hatfield/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hatfield v. hatfield/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Instead, a “special action petition is the appropriate method to challenge a civil contempt order.” ¶ 7, ¶ 30, (“[I]t has long been held that [a] contempt order is reviewable in appropriate circumstances by special action, but not by way of appeal.”).
  • Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    .” ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
  • Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014