Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
330, (concluding that the appellate court may affirm a superior court’s decision if the trial court reaches the correct result albeit for the wrong reason).
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Master Financial, Inc. v. Woodburn 90 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Master Financial, Inc. v. Woodburn 90 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Viewing the facts and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Monaco, 196 Ariz. at 302, ¶ 6, 995 P.2d at 738, we will affirm the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law “even if the trial court has reached the right result for the wrong reason.”
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
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
Thus, “[t]he purpose of the rule is to provide relief for those mistakes and errors which inevitably occur despite diligent efforts to comply with the rules.”
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
I, 172 Ariz. at 188 , 836 P.2d at 401
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
¶ 15 Concerned that the compelling interest in the finality of judgments not be lightly disregarded, a year later, , our supreme court added some additional requirements for allowing a delayed appeal from a judgment or order.
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-29 , -79 (1985) (trial court’s discretion under Civil Rule 60(c) does not enable it to misapply the law or legal principles).
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The trial court has broad discretion in using this equitable tool, but in doing so, may not “ ‘misapply law or legal principiéis],’” act “‘arbitrarily or inequitably,’” or “‘make decisions unsupported by facts or sound legal policy.’ ” Gorman, 152 Ariz. at 182 , 731 P.2d at 77 (-29 , -79 (1985)).
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson v. Elson 967 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., , *489
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
329 n. 3, , 1079 n. 3 (1985).
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
7 See, , , , Coconino Pulp & P.2d 550 (1957).
Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc. 942 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc. 942 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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.
St. Joseph's Hospital v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 916 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
St. Joseph's Hospital v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 916 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
MacCollum v. Perkinson 913 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993