Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Engineers v. Sharpe, 573 P.2d 487.

26 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
Engineers v. 5 (“[T]he appealability of an order ‘turns [up]on the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from.’” ()).
Risser v. Pinewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Risser v. Pinewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
196 P. 167, 169 (1921) (order reinstating case after order of dismissal was the same as order vacating the dismissal and appealable as special order made after judgment).
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
(new trial motion directed at entry of partial summary judgment that itself was final because it contained Rule 54(b) language was appealable not pursuant to section 12-2101(F) but pursuant to section 12-2101(0) as an “order made after final judgment”); Kemble, 88 Ariz. at 419 , 357 P.2
Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Engineers *607 v. Sharpe
Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Valenzuela v. Brown 919 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
The insurers’ , for the general proposition that a summary judgment cannot be treated as a trial is also misplaced.
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“[Tjhe appealability of an order ‘turns on the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from.’ ” , ( , ).
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , (grant of motion for reconsideration from entry of summary judgment is appealable); -03 , 196 P. 167, 169 (1921) (order reinstating case after being dismissed for lack of prosecution is the same as an order vacating an order of dismissal, a
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Autonumerics, Inc. v. Bayer Industries, Inc. 696 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Industrial Commission 676 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Industrial Commission 676 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
(order vacating summary judgment, as opposed to denial of summary judgment, is appealable).
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
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
that a trial court may treat a motion as one filed under rule 59(a) and that such action is not an abuse of discretion.
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
and Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Sims, *228 , the trial judge has discretion to treat his motion as one for a new trial pursuant to civil Rule 59(a) even though it did not meet the requirements stated in Hegel and, more particularly, Desmond .
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
bears a close analogy to the instant case.