Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Continental Cas. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 635 P.2d 174.

46 citing documents.

Moldovan v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Moldovan v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Heritage v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Superior Court, (finding the court abused its discretion in refusing to follow the parties' stipulations when the stipulations were consistent with court rules).
Hernandez v. Athey 541 P.3d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hernandez v. Athey 541 P.3d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Superior Court, (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen.
Jones Capital v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jones Capital v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Flynn v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Powers v. Hon contes/quinlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Powers v. Hon contes/quinlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Superior Court, (court may abuse its discretion “by not permitting 54(b) language in granting summary judgment when the claim involved is clearly separate and distinct from the remaining claims”).
Rychlik v. Sodergren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rychlik v. Sodergren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Superior Court, (discussing the appropriateness of including Rule 54(b) language when there are multiple claims).
Andrich v. Meyers, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Andrich v. Meyers, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Superior Court, (“[A] claim is separable from others remaining to be adjudicated when the nature of the claim already determined is ‘such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there are subsequent appeals.’”).
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Superior Court, (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen.
Jackson v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jackson v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
4 JACKSON v. HARRIS, et al. Decision of the Court ¶14 to support Rule 54(b) certification.
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C. 338 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C. 338 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Superior Court, and is a “compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice,” Sw.
Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
v. Superior Court, -92, - 77 (1981); 5 “whether „the judgment in fact is‟” final is another question of law that we review de novo, Mansoori, 153 P.3d at 1088, quoting Davis v.
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
v. Superior Court, (“‘For the purpose of rule 54(b), multiple claims exist if the factual basis for recovery states a number of different claims that could have been enforced separately,’” and separate claim need not “be entirely distinct from all the other claims in the action” or “arise from a differ
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
v. Superior Court , , quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen.
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
v. Superior Court, , (“[I]t is ...
Wersch v. Radnor/Landgrant 961 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Wersch v. Radnor/Landgrant 961 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 812 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 812 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rather, a claim is separable from others remaining to be adjudicated when the nature of the claim already determined is “such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there are subsequent appeals.” , (quoting Curtis-Wright Corp. v. General Elec.
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
1460, 1465 , 64 L.Ed.2d 1, 11 (1980)
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 785 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 785 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Moreover, , our Supreme Court, following Curtiss-Wright Corp v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct.
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
As our supreme court said in Continental Casualty v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa, , : “...

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by