Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Anderson v. Pickrell, 566 P.2d 1335.

30 citing documents.

Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz 532 P.3d 752 Ariz. 2023
Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz 532 P.3d 752 Ariz. 2023
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
¶ 6, (quoting Anderson v. Pickrell , , 590, , 1336 (1977) ).
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In addition, the bond “restrain[s] [Wife] and the [trial] court from taking affirmative action to enforce the judgment or decree.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel R Romley v. Hon Ballinger 97 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona Ex Rel R Romley v. Hon Ballinger 97 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2004
The power “may not be supplemented, annulled or superseded by an inferior court such as the Superior Court.”
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV131701 904 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV131701 904 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
This rulemaking power “may not be supplemented, annulled or superseded by an inferior court.”
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Only the Arizona Supreme Court “has the Power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” , (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court 774 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court 774 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fite v. Lee, 11 Wash.App.
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 722 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1986
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 722 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1986
Ring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 708 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 708 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rings next argue that the “no action” clause conflicts with the provision in the policy which requires State Farm “to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages.” , Rings correctly note that the posting of a supersedeas bond, as required by Rule 7, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, is the only means by which enforcement of a judgment is stayed pending appeal.
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
Hare v. SUPER. COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 652 P.2d 1387 Ariz. 1982
Hare v. SUPER. COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 652 P.2d 1387 Ariz. 1982
State v. Grange 635 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Grange 635 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981