Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cordova v. City of Tucson, 489 P.2d 727.

25 citing documents.

KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
A. Jurisdiction ¶ 8 As a threshold matter, “[w]e are obligated to examine our jurisdiction over an appeal____” ¶ 12 , ( , ).
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Improvement & Power Dist., P.2d 1275 (1974); - 71, -29 (1971); (special action provides only relief from order of immediate possession).
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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
(“[T]he right to appeal exists only by force of statute .
Penny Osuna v. Walmart Stores, Inc. Sam's Club Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Penny Osuna v. Walmart Stores, Inc. Sam's Club Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶9 “[T]he right to appeal exists only by force of statute.”
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
We are obligated to examine our jurisdiction over an appeal; “the right to appeal exists only by force of statute.” Cordova v. City of Tucson , , .
Bailey v. Myers 76 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Bailey v. Myers 76 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Improvement & Power Dist., , (interlocutory order of immediate possession is not appealable); , (“Although no rights of appeal exist, judicial intervention by way of special action may be available to avoid the serious economic waste which would result from a long drawn-out trial when the condemning authority has no right to condemn the land in question.”).
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
Empress Beauty Supply, Inc. v. Price 567 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Empress Beauty Supply, Inc. v. Price 567 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Cook v. Cook 547 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Cook v. Cook 547 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Koval v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Meyer v. Campbell, 13 Ariz.App.
Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 517 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1974
Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 517 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1974
We hold, therefore, that this appeal is premature.” -471 , -729 (1971).