Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Welch v. McClure, 598 P.2d 980.

48 citing documents.

Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(interpreting Ariz. R. Civ.
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“The general rule is that total costs are taxed against defendants who are jointly and severally liable on the judgment.”).
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(“The general rule is that total costs are taxed against defendants who are jointly and severally liable on the judgment.”).
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
“If the motion does not set forth a basis recognized by the rule for setting aside a judgment, relief must be denied.”
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
"The crucial factor to be considered on this issue [whether a Rule 59 motion should be treated as one under Rule 60] is whether the defendants’ motion sets forth grounds for relief recognized by Rule 60(c).” , (trial judge correctly did not treat motion as one under Rule 60).
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and, if reasonable persons could agree with the jury’s award, sustain the verdict “unless it [is] so exorbitant as to indicate passion, prejudice, mistake or complete disregard of the evidence and instructions.” *403
Lopez-Hudson v. Schneider 937 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Lopez-Hudson v. Schneider 937 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
MVC Construction, Inc. v. Treadway 898 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Center 819 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Mullen v. Posada Del Sol Health Care Center 819 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Although not directly in point, in Welch v. McClure, 123 * P.2d 980 (1979), the Arizona Supreme Court applied the general rule that total costs are not to be apportioned but are to be taxed jointly and severally against all defendants jointly and severally liable.
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
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
Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Dull v. Dull 674 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Dull v. Dull 674 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
Foster v. Camelback Management Co. 646 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Foster v. Camelback Management Co. 646 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Lone Mountain Ranch, Inc. v. Dillingham Investment, Inc. 643 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Lone Mountain Ranch, Inc. v. Dillingham Investment, Inc. 643 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
207 (1951) (construing federal rule 60(b)); Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 597 F.2d 32 (2nd Cir. 1979) (same), or to other procedures for obtaining review of erroneous legal rulings, such as a motion for new trial or amended judgment under Rule 59
Anderson v. Hawkins 628 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Anderson v. Hawkins 628 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
534, 536 , we observed: “Rule 60(c) is not designed to be a substitute for appeal (citation omitted), nor is it designed to be a vehicle for relitigating issues, (citation omitted)” -165 , -984 (1979), the court acknowledged: “...