Cited by

See ARCAP 9(a); Focal Point, n.1 (App. 1986) (untimely cross-appeal).

¶20 Danko’s untimely appeal did not begin the appellate process because when an “appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.”

(perfecting appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional).

¶ 11 (App. 2007) (“It is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.”) ().

Servs, (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”).

1984) (analyzing the analogous federal rule); (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”) (citing Jenney v. Ariz. Express, Inc., -74 (1956)).

(“[W]here the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.”) (citations omitted).

(giving great weight to federal interpretations of rules of civil procedure); Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., n.8, ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (“It is appropriate to look to federal courts’ interpretations of federal rules that mirror Arizona rules.”) (citations omitted).

Because the notice was not timely filed, see ARCAP 9, we lack jurisdiction to address that appeal

And, “‘[i]t is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.’”

Supply Co., and they do not extend the time for an appeal

(giving great weight to federal interpretations of rules of civil procedure); Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., n.8, n.8 (App. 2008) (“It is appropriate to look to federal courts’ interpretations of federal rules that mirror Arizona rules.”).

See generally Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, (noting that Arizona courts “give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules”) (citations omitted).

(noting the perfecting of appeal within prescribed time is prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction).

P. 41(a) (Historical Notes); , (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”); ¶ 56 , (declining to adopt Supreme Court’s interpretation of fed

See ARCAP 8(a) (“Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal.”); (“[W]here the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.”).

“‘It is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.’” James, 158 P.3d at 908

¶11 “It is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.” see also Mayer v. State, 184 Ariz. 242, 243, (“Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider appeals that are not timely filed.”); Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”