Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi, 644 P.2d 1305.
- Takieh v. Banner Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Takieh v. Banner Health
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The supreme court affirmed these 4
- Hackett v. Hackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Hackett v. Hackett
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-22, -08 (1982) (motion for rehearing extended time for appeal even though it did not refer to Rule 59 because the judge treated the motion as one for new trial).
- 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
- Signs v. Merziotis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Signs v. Merziotis
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(interpreting narrowly the specific actions set forth in ARCAP 9(b) that may extend the time to file an appeal) (citing Desmond v. J. W. Hancock Enters., Inc., and Hegel v. O’Malley Ins.
- Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Cml-Az v. Orosel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Cml-Az v. Orosel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-22, -08 (1982); -86, ¶¶ 13-16, -09 (App. 2007) 2 CML-AZ v. OROSEL Decision of the Court (applying Vagnozzi and concluding appellant’s mo
- Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Tripati v. FORWITH
219 P.3d 291
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
221 n. 2, , 1307 n. 2 (1982).
- Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
- Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶15 Finally, our supreme court “reaffirm[ed] the holdings of Hegel and Desmond that in order for a party to be assured of the time-extending qualities of a motion for new trial, [the party] must both refer to rule 59 as authority for the motion and describe grounds set forth in that rule.” The
- 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
- Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
Rawlings v. Apodaca
726 P.2d 596
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
our supreme court held that a motion for a new trial must meet two requirements.
- 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