Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maganas v. Northroup, 537 P.2d 595.

48 citing documents.

Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A timely motion for new trial will extend the appeal time after a grant of summary judgment, a dismissal for failure to prosecute, see Hartford Accident & Indem.
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(noting that “Rule 59(l) refers only to a motion to alter or amend a judgment” while “[t]he grounds for vacation of a judgment are set forth in .
Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
A litigant should be given the opportunity to persuade the trial court of its error, , so that the trial court’s ruling on a pending motion may cure any error and obviate the necessity for an appeal.
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cambridge Co. v. Arizona Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 801 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cambridge Co. v. Arizona Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 801 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wendling v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 694 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Union Rock & Mat. v. Scottsdale Con. Center 678 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Union Rock & Mat. v. Scottsdale Con. Center 678 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
Maganas v. Northroup 663 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1983
State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1305 Ariz. 1982
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1305 Ariz. 1982
Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
(Rule 59 motion proper even when no “trial” has been conducted).
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
our supreme court held that even though there had been no “trial”, a civil Rule 59(a)(8) motion for new trial could be directed to a summary judgment rendered pursuant to civil Rule 56.
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Judge Moeller’s decision to treat plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as a Rule 59(a)
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs. 573 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1977
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs. 573 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1977
We believe that a , is necessary.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Granillo 573 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Granillo 573 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
which held that a motion for new trial can be asserted against a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 59, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The trial court stated, in its accompanying minute entry that it was treating the motion for reconsideration as a Rule 59(a) , 537 *
Matter of Estate of Balcomb 562 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Matter of Estate of Balcomb 562 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
the Supreme Court held that a motion for new trial is proper after a summary judgment and defers the time for filing an appeal.