Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs., 573 P.2d 485.

40 citing documents.

Dume v. Darbouze Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dume v. Darbouze Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., Inc., Agents & Brokers, (courts may consider the substance of a motion, rather than the title, and address the motion accordingly).
Smith v. Reynolds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Smith v. Reynolds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., (reasoning that examining only the title of a motion is contrary to the purpose of the rules of civil procedure).
Vargas v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Vargas v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., Agents & Brokers, (holding that “irrespective of the title of a motion, if its substance shows clearly that it seeks relief under Rule 59(a) .
Byron H. v. Dcs, A.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Byron H. v. Dcs, A.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., Agents & Brokers, (explaining that a court may consider the substance of a motion, rather than the title, and address the motion accordingly).
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
12 TRUCK v. TEIXIDOR, et al. Decision of the Court Co., (holding that a motion should be considered according to its substance, rather than its title).
Takieh v. Banner Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Takieh v. Banner Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Signs v. Merziotis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Signs v. Merziotis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., Agents & Brokers, ).
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., the court addressed the issue of “whether a motion styled ‘Motion to Vacate’ with a reference to Rule 59(a), [Ariz. R. Civ.
United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Properties, L.L.C. 4 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Properties, L.L.C. 4 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., Agents and Brokers, , both in citing Civil Rule 59(a) and in seeking relief on grounds set forth in that rule so as to be treated as a valid time-extending motion.
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State ex rel. Corbin v. Tolleson 732 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State ex rel. Corbin v. Tolleson 732 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., Inc., Agents and Brokers
Butler Products Co., Inc. v. Roush 699 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Butler Products Co., Inc. v. Roush 699 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
: Counsel, of course, have the obligation and burden of filing properly styled motions which clearly indicate the nature of the relief sought and the appropriate legal references to support the motion.
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
Co., Agents and Brokers, , in which we held: ...
Quine v. Godwin 646 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Quine v. Godwin 646 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Co., , later clarified in Desmond v. J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc.
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
Co., , the plaintiffs brought a “motion to vacate” a summary judgment.
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
See Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., Inc.
Desmond v. J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. 600 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1979
Desmond v. J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. 600 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1979
Co., Agents and Brokers, , as authority for their position.
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs.
Hugh Kelly Enterprises, Inc. v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co. 577 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hugh Kelly Enterprises, Inc. v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co. 577 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., Inc.
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
See Maganas, supra, and Hegel v. O’Malley