Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Walker v. Kendig, 489 P.2d 849.

53 citing documents.

SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Firestone v. Safire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Firestone v. Safire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-12 (1971) (attorney, who filed an affidavit stating he contracted Valley Fever before the case was placed on the inactive calendar, but with symptoms lasting “several months thereafter,” and showing “he did not see the notice that the case had been placed on the Inactive Calendar” and failed to prevent its dismis
Ashkenazi v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ashkenazi v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
As defined by the Arizona Supreme Court, discretion “is a liberty or privilege allowed to a judge, within the confines of right and justice,” to determine “what is fair, equitable, and wholesome, as determined by the peculiar circumstances of the case, and as discerned by his personal wisdom and experience.” (citation omitted).
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hiller v. Hualapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 HILLER v. HUALAPAI, et al. Decision of the Court merits and not to punish litigants because of the inaction of their counsel”); (stating that, although dismissal from inactive calendar for lack of prosecution is without prejudice, “such an order must be issued only after careful consideration because justice requires that when possible a matter be determined upon its merits”)
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(when making discretionary determination, trial court may rely on “‘personal wisdom and experience’”), 163 P. 264, 265-66 (1917); (in determining reasonable attorney fees, “t
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“[V]erified sudden illness usually presents exceptional circumstances under which a reasonably prudent attorney could be ‘excused’ from properly carrying out his practice.”); -35, -27 (Tax 1993) (rejecting att
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
513 , 852 (1971) (abuse of discretion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to set for trial within court imposed deadlines); ¶¶ 21, 23 , (abuse of discretion to grant motion in limine based on party’s failure to respond); Wayne Cook
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(stating that "[t]he purpose of [former] Uniform Rule V(e) is procedural, not substantive") [10] ; , ("[T]he interests of justice are best served by a trial on the merits."); White, 167 Ariz. at 92 , 804 P.2d at 821 (Lankford, J., dissenting) (stating that the supreme court's previous observations that former Uniform Rule V(e) should not be used to win a case by avoiding trial on the m
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
7 See, , , , Coconino Pulp & P.2d 550 (1957).
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
v. Superior Court, , Wright v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
cf Rule 1 (rules of civil procedure “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”).
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rapton 680 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rapton 680 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The test for a finding of excusable neglect in Arizona is whether the neglect “is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent man under the circumstances.”
McKinley v. Town of Fredonia 680 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McKinley v. Town of Fredonia 680 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rule 60(c)(1) allows for relief when there is “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” “The test of what is ‘excusable’ is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent man under the same circumstances.”
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Camacho v. Gardner, 104 Ariz. at 560 , 456 P.2d at 930 ; , -26 (1951).
Suppeland v. Nilz 623 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Suppeland v. Nilz 623 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Rich v. Tudor 599 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Moqui, Inc. v. Ambrose & Rosenfield & Co. 521 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974