DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Davis v. Davis, 691 P.2d 1082.

41 citing documents.

  • Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    A party requesting relief under Rule 60(c)(6) must show “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice justifying relief.”
  • Jp Morgan v. Adams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Jp Morgan v. Adams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    To obtain relief under this rule, “the movant must show 1) extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice justifying relief and 2) a reason for setting aside the judgment other than one of the reasons set forth in the preceding five clauses.”
  • Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (noting party seeking relief under Subsection (6) must show “a reason for setting aside the judgment other than one of the reasons set forth in the preceding five clauses” ().
  • State v. Groh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Groh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (finding that “uncontroverted facts in the record” justified post-judgment relief); cf. GM Dev.
  • Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Canyon v. Earle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Canyon v. Earle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Sec., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2000) ().
  • Amanti Electric, Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., Western Surety Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Amanti Electric, Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., Western Surety Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • 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
    In its motion, CLD claimed the judgment should be set aside pursuant to either Rule 60(c)(1) on the ground of excusable neglect or the catchall provision of Rule 60(c)(6), which requires the movant to show “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice justifying relief,” , because: (1) Harper did not send a copy of the application for default to CLD’s attorney as required by Rule 55(a)(l)(ii); (2) CLD’s listed statutory agent on record with the Arizona Corporation Commission was its form
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    Co., see Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., (appellate court will sustain trial court’s factual findings unless “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence”); (finding absence of prejudice when appellee informed promptly after trial of appellant’s intent to appeal).
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Our case law permits the use of Rule 60(c)(6) in " 'extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice,' other than or in addition to those circumstances set out in clauses (1) through (5).” , , Edsall v. Superior Court (Edsall)
  • Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (finding no diminished ability on the part of the plaintiff to gather and present evidence or reliance on the finality of the judgment).
  • 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
    “In order to obtain relief under 60(c)(6), the movant must show 1) extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice justifying relief and 2) a reason for setting aside the judgment other than one of the reasons set forth in the preceding five clauses of rule 60(c).”
  • JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • 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
  • 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
    DILIGENCE Relief under Rule 60(c)(6) is warranted only if the plaintiff shows “ ‘extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice,’ other than or in addition to those circumstances set out in clauses (1) through (5).” Gorman, 152 Ariz. at 182 , 731 P.2d at 77 ( , ) (other citations omitted).
  • Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
  • 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
    The rule lists five specific bases for relief, followed by clause (6), a catchall provision permitting the court to act for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 4 To obtain relief under Rule 60(c)(6), a party must show “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.”
  • 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
  • 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