Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Webb v. Erickson, 655 P.2d 6.

103 citing documents.

Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
the ‘other reason’ advanced must be one that justifies relief.” , (citations omitted).
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See, -86 , -10 (1982) (“The test of good cause is the same for an entry or judgment of default.”); , (“The ‘good cause’ requirement of Rule 55(c) coincides with the standard governing the propriety of setting aside a default judgment under R
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“The test of good cause is the same for an entry or judgment of default.” -86 , -10 (1982).
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
constitutes [sic] ‘extraordinary circumstances’ requiring relief under Rule 60(c)(6).” As appellees point out, however, Maher did not present this argument below, but rather solely requested “relief under Rule 60(c) for excusable neglect.” (“the reason for setting aside the [judgment or order under subsection (6)] must not be one of the reasons set forth in the five preceding clauses”).
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
“‘First, the reason for setting aside the [judgment or order] must not be one of the reasons set forth in the five preceding clauses____Second, the “other reason” advanced must be one that justifies relief.’ ” Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , ( , (citations omitted) (emphasis in original)).
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Davis, 143 Ariz. at 57 , 691 P.2d at 1085
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rule 60(c)(6) applies only when our systemic commitment to finality of judgments is outweighed by “ ‘extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.’” Bickerstaff, 141 Ariz. at 632 , 688 P.2d at 640 ( , ).
Stewart v. Travers 965 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Stewart v. Travers 965 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 24 Richard also contends he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(c)(6), which allows relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” For this clause to apply, none of the particular reasons set forth in clauses one through five can apply, and the motion must raise “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.” -87 , -11 (1982); see also Edsall v. Superior Ct.
STATE DES v. Valentine 945 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
STATE DES v. Valentine 945 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-87 , -11 (1982); Beal v. State Farm Mut.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
172 Ariz. at 188 , 836 P.2d at 401
Miller v. National Franchise Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Miller v. National Franchise Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
141 Ariz. at 632 , 688 P.2d at 640 ( , ).
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
accord Bickerstaff, 141 Ariz. at 632 , 688 P.2d at 640
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
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd.
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Conlin 712 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Conlin 712 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Clause (6) of rule 60(c) authorizes relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” , 7 the Arizona Supreme Court held that the applicability of rule 60(c)(6) depends on whether “the facts ...
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. Geyler 697 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1985
City of Phoenix v. Geyler 697 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1985
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
* * * Second, the ‘other reason’ advanced must be one which justifies relief.” (citations omitted)
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc. 688 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1984
Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc. 688 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1984
(grounds for relief from judgment of default).
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
the court of appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in setting aside default judgment.
Park v. Strick 669 P.2d 78 Ariz. 1983