Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barassi v. Matison, 636 P.2d 1200.

122 citing documents.

Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
For support, , : “It should be noted that the Arizona appellate courts will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the case where a litigant attempts to appeal where a motion is still pending in the trial court or where there is no final judgment.” 130 Ariz. at 422 , 636 P.2d at 1204 .
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
[2] , (premature notice of appeal did not preclude appellate jurisdiction; purpose behind time requirements is still served even when notice is filed too early).
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(premature notice of appeal did not preclude appellate jurisdiction; purpose behind time requirements is still served even when notice is filed too early).
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
m a final judgment entered in an action or special proceeding commenced in a superior court, or brought into a superior court from any other court____ We require an appeal be taken from a final judgment to “avoid the constant disruption of the trial process, to prevent appellate courts from considering issues that may be addressed later in trial, and to promote efficiency____”
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peaton 812 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peaton 812 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
: The underlying rationale of requiring a final judgment for appealability is to avoid the constant disruption of the trial process, to prevent appellate courts from considering issues that may be addressed later in trial, and to promote efficiency, that is, encourage the consolidation in one app
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
Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. v. City of Tempe 714 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. v. City of Tempe 714 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
that under the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure which were enacted in 1977 a premature appeal is not jurisdiction-ally defective.
In Re the Marriage of Gray 695 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1985
In Re the Marriage of Gray 695 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1985
Snell v. McCarty 636 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1981
McLaws v. Kruger 636 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1981
Snell v. McCarty 636 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1981
Therefore, a notice of appeal filed after a minute entry order but before entry of judgment is now timely.”
McLaws v. Kruger 636 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1981
this Court addressed the issue of premature appeals and held that the language of ARCAP Rule 9(a) 1 could be interpreted as permitting an appeal from a minute entry prior to the final judgment.