Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The trial court decides whether conduct is excusable by determining “whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.”
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Passey v. Great Western Associates II 850 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 849 P.2d 1371 Ariz. 1992
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 849 P.2d 1371 Ariz. 1992
-27 , -77 (1985), the court accurately characterized the “Received” and “Processed” dates as the dates on which the clerk’s office receives and mails the minute entry respectively.
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Our supreme court has held that the “standard for determining whether conduct is ‘excusable’ ” under Rule 60(c) for purposes of determining propriety of relief from judgment “is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the action of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.”
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
If a court’s decision is based upon “a determination of disputed questions of fact or credibility, a balancing of competing interests, pursuit of recognized judicial policy, or any other basis to which we should give deference,” , we will not second-guess or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(if trial court did not exercise its discretion in denying a motion for relief from judgment, the reviewing court will examine the facts of the case to determine if tenable grounds exist for the court’s ruling); May v. Wright, 62 Wash.2d 69 , -04 (1963) (if trial cour
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Byers v. Wik 818 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Byers v. Wik 818 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The Trust later moved for a delayed appeal pursuant to Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 838 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-8441 838 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
*190 , Ace Automotive Products, -144 , -902 (App.1987).
Harris v. Reserve Life Insurance 762 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Harris v. Reserve Life Insurance 762 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Snow v. Snow 745 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pugh v. Cook 735 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Followed Pugh v. Cook 735 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Pochiro 736 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Pochiro 736 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
make decisions unsupported by facts or sound legal policy.” -29 , -79 (1985).
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Having examined the record, and in light of our standard of review, we find no “abuse of discretion” -29 , -79 (1985).
Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion.’ ” 146 Ariz. at 192, 704 P.2d at 833 , quoting Addison v. Cienega, Ltd., supra
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The exercise of that discretion must, however, be supported “by facts or sound legal policy.”
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Or, , this “was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion.” On these facts, a finding of excusable neglect is well within the discretion of the trial court.
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY. 700 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985