Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Focal Point, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 717 P.2d 432.

32 citing documents.

Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Focal Point, (holding that a minute entry is a final judgment if it is signed by a judge and filed with the clerk); Ariz. R. Civ.
Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
5, 7 , , 35 (1975) (“In the absence of any other statutory authority, we must conclude that the term Judgment as used in the statutes takes its meaning from the definition set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also Focal Point, Inc. v. Court of Appeals of State of Ariz., Div. One, -30 , -34 (1986) (stating that minute entry that satisfied all requirements of Rule 58(a) is a judgment creating a valid judgment lien).
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cf. Focal Point, , (holding that a minute entry can constitute a final judgment only if it is signed by a judge and filed with the clerk); Haywood Sec., -17, ¶ 14 , -41 (2007) (noting the importance of a judge’s intent in determining whether the requirem
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
v. City of Phoenix, (holding that a document entitled “OPINION” was not final and appealable because the superior court judge did not intend it to be); Focal Point, (finding minute entry a valid judgment because the trial court signed the written minute entry order and titled it “JUDGMENT,” demonstrating the intent that the order serve as 7 an appealable judgment).
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Focal Point, -30, -34 (1986) (minute entry disposing of case appealable if written, signed by a judge, and filed with clerk of court); State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 111, (“The word ‘order’ is synonymous with the words ‘judgment’ and ‘decree’ [for purposes of §12-2101].”).
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(holding that a judgment is not final until it is filed with the clerk of the court).
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Sims v. Ryan 890 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Sims v. Ryan 890 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
2(d), 17B A.R.S.; *332 Focal Point, -80 , -34 (1986).
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
It drew this conclusion from an observation in Focal Point, , 129 n.*, , 433 n.* (1986).
Pima County v. Testin 840 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Pima County v. Testin 840 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
58, 16 A.R.S.; Focal Point, Inc. v. Court of Appeals of State of Ariz., Div. One
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
The court of appeals cited rule 58(a), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S., as well as Focal Point, , to support its conclusion.
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
See Focal Point, , (“It is the practice of the superior court clerk in Maricopa County not to use a ‘filed’ stamp on minute entries filed in the clerk’s office.
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 780 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank 780 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Schoenfelder relies on Focal Point, , to argue that the date on which the formal order was “entered” was the date on which it was physically placed in the hands of the clerk, November 17, 1987.
Brubaker v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 754 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Brubaker v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 754 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
We granted appellant’s petition for review to decide the following issues: *29 1) Whether the rule in Focal Point, , that a written minute order, signed by a judge or court commissioner, and filed with the court clerk constitutes a judgment under Rule 58(a), Ariz.R.
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
On February 27, 1986, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Focal Point