DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc., 688 P.2d 637.

47 citing documents.

  • Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
  • Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
    See, ¶ 6 (2000) (Rule 60(c)(6) “applies only when our systemic commitment to finality of judgments is outweighed by extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.” (quoting Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Rest., Inc., (internal quotation marks omitted))).
  • Eastwood v. Atlas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Eastwood v. Atlas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 12-2101(A)(3)5; Campbell v. Deddens, 93 2 “To obtain relief under Rule 60(c), a movant must show that one of the reasons for relief described in clauses (1) to (6) applies, that she acted promptly in seeking relief, and that her claim was meritorious.” Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., -46 n.3 ¶ 8, –02 n.3 (2000).
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Owen v. Blackhawk 79 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    -91 , -50 (App.1993) (citing Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , ).
  • 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)).
  • 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
    -82 , -77 (1987); Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ¶ 18 No Arizona case has yet adopted the “positive misconduct” rule, but both this court and our supreme court have indicated that such relief under Rule 60(c)(6) may be warranted if the attorney’s conduct amounts to a “total abandonment of actual representation.” Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , Mission Ins., 170 Ariz. at 109 , 822 P.2d at 5 .
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
  • Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
    -29 , -79 (1985); Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    See Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUM 859 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUM 859 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Jepson, 164 Ariz. at 270 , 792 P.2d at 733 ; Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc.
  • Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    In reviewing the actions of Mr. Elliott, the court does not find that “extraordinary circumstances” exist which would justify relief pursuant to Rule 60(c)(6) as set forth in that rule or Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • R.A.J. v. L.B.V. 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Raj v. Lbv 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Raj v. Lbv 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc., , Staffco
  • R.A.J. v. L.B.V. 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc., , Staffco
  • Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
  • M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    The requirements for relief from Rule V dismissal under Rule 60(c)(6) have been discussed at length in Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , , and Cline v. Ticor Title Ins.
  • Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    In Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , like this case, one of dismissal for lack of prosecution, our supreme court acknowledged the passing of the statutory limitations period “as one of many factors in a determination of ‘extraordinary circumstances,’” but the court held that passage of the limitations period alone, absent other com
  • Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    The Arizona Supreme Court, after reviewing this record, found that the parties were actively involved in pursuing the litigation and stated: “A desultory exchange of settlement letters, as in Bickerstaff [v. Denny’s Restaurant, , ], may count for very little; a record showing, as in the present case, vigorous pursuit of a claim should count for much.
  • Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Bicker-staff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • 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
    We find that Gorman and the case which Gorman was written to clarify, Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , together control the issues raised in this case.
  • Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
  • Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
    Both courts based their decisions on our recent opinion in Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • 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
    We recognize that in Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , our supreme court considered the merits of an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a dismissal without prejudice filed pursuant to Rule 60(c).
  • Garcia v. State 713 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Garcia v. State 713 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    See, e.g., Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • 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
    “We concluded that, to justify relief under clause 6, the facts must go beyond the factors enumerated in clauses 1 through 5 and raise ‘extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice * * *.’” Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
  • Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
  • Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
    Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.