Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp., 652 P.2d 1377.

44 citing documents.

Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Appeals of an order where the superior court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order “gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.” McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (citation omitted).
Slawson v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Slawson v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Four 3's v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, LLC, -25, ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (providing that this court lacks jurisdiction if parties remain in the action despite Rule 54(c) language).
Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cf. McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (if the superior court lacks “jurisdiction to issue an order[,] an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.”).
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (“If a lower court has no jurisdiction to issue an order an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.”).
Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (stating that unserved defendants are not parties for the purpose of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)’s requirement that a final judgment dispose of all claims and parties).
Simpson v. Bell Plaza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Simpson v. Bell Plaza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (holding unserved individuals are not “parties” for purposes of entry of final judgment and appellate jurisdiction).
Ashby v. Biglow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ashby v. Biglow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp.
Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (holding that unserved defendants are not “parties” within the meaning of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure).
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (holding that naming John Does and failure to serve remaining named defendants does not require Rule 54(b) certification for judgment to be appealable).
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (“If a lower court has no jurisdiction to issue an order an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.”).
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
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., –82 ¶¶ 21–23, –18 (App. 2013).
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hope v. Hope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glover, 231 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 22, 289 P.3d at 18 (appellate court must dismiss appeal and instruct family court to vacate modification orders where family court’s order modifying foreign child support order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); see McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., (“If a lower court has no jurisdiction to issue an order an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.”).
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., , (holding unserved defendants are not “parties,” within the meaning of the Rules); Simon v. Maricopa Med.
Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Carp.
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
McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., , see also Castillo v. Indus.
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See McHa-zlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., , (holding unserved defendants are not “parties,” within the meaning of Rule 54(b)).
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Comerica Bank v. MAHMOODI 229 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp., , (holding unserved defendants are not “parties” within the meaning of Rule 54(b)).
Riendeau v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 225 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Riendeau v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 225 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ronan v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by