Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 697 P.2d 1073.

347 citing documents.

Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Geyler, 333, 1083 (1985) (noting that we defer to the trial court because it is in the best position to hear testimony, determine credibility and decide the facts); see also Riggs, 2 Ariz. App. at 529, 410 P.2d at 151 (noting that the fact that the president of two companies was served but only one
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Emerman v. Az Holding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
v. Geyler, or predicates its decision on an error of law.
Rep Andrew Tobin v. Hon Rea 291 P.3d 983 Ariz. 2013
Rep Andrew Tobin v. Hon Rea 291 P.3d 983 Ariz. 2013
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We will affirm the tidal court’s judgment “even though the [] court may have reached the right result for the wrong reason.”
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C. 269 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Reeves v. Barlow 251 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Reeves v. Barlow 251 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Finally, we will affirm the superior court’s judgment “even though the [] court may have reached the right result for the wrong reason.”
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(recognizing appellate court’s obligation to affirm where any reasonable view of facts and law might support trial court’s judgment); , (stating appellate court “ ‘must affirm if there is any proper basis to do so’ ”)
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir.1983); , ); ¶ 19 , (recognizing the strong public policy favoring the finality of judg
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 7 Because we may affirm a trial court’s correct decision for any reason, even one not raised by the parties, , we further review the dichotomy between § 13-404 and Dumaine to determine if we may do so here.
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We review a trial court’s decision denying a motion to set aside a judgment for an abuse of discretion and affirm “unless ‘undisputed facts and circumstances require a contrary ruling.’ ” , (quoting Coconino Pulp & , ).
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶¶ 2-8, 21, -35, 1037 (App. 1999); (finding “quite unique and compelling” circumstances probably would warrant delayed appeal even though “counsel did not attempt to learn the date of entry of judgment” and “the reason for his failure to do so was the erroneous interpretation of the [trial court’s] order and resulting m
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts 177 P.3d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
This court will affirm the judgment “even if the trial court has reached the right result for the wrong reason.”
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“We recognize the obligation of appellate courts to affirm where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court.
Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
n to adopt the following four factors, put forward by the Ninth Circuit in Rodgers v. Watt, for a court to consider in deciding whether to grant relief: “(1) absence of [Rule 58(e) ] notice; (2) lack of prejudice to respondent; (3) prompt filing of a motion after actual notice, and (4) due diligence, or reason for lack thereof, by counsel in attempting to be informed of the date of the decision.” , (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.1983)).
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(“The standard for determining whether conduct is ‘excusable’ is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.”); id.
Moreno v. Jones 139 P.3d 612 Ariz. 2006
Moreno v. Jones 139 P.3d 612 Ariz. 2006
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
13 which inevitably occur despite diligent efforts to comply with the rules.”
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(We will affirm the judgment “even if the trial court has reached the right result for the wrong reason.”).