DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ashton v. Sierrita Mining and Ranching, 518 P.2d 1020.

32 citing documents.

  • Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Muscarella v. Muscarella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    In other words, “if [the evidence] was in possession of the party before the judgment was rendered it is not newly discovered and does not entitle h[er] to relief.” Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, (citation omitted).
  • Walker v. Heald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Walker v. Heald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)(1).” “[T]he evidence must have been in existence at the time of the trial, but if it was in possession of the party before the judgment was rendered it is not newly discovered and does not entitle him to relief.” Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, (citation omitted).
  • Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Laveen Meadows v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, (stating evidence that “was in possession of the party before the judgment was rendered .
  • McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    would not have changed the result.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Delbridge, 182 Ariz. at 54 (citing Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, ).
  • Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (concluding party failed to establish newly discovered evidence where “both witnesses furnishing the allegedly newly discovered evidence was known” prior to entry of judgment) (citing Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, and 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2859 (1973)); see also Wendling, 143 Ariz. at 602 (“If [newly discovered evidence] was in the possession of the party before the judgment was rendered, .
  • Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, (citation omitted) (explaining that courts will not reopen a judgment “if the evidence is merely cumulative and would not have changed the result”).
  • 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
    2, allows relief from a judgment or order when the moving party produces “newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.” But “‘[a] judgment will not be reopened if the evidence is merely cumulative and would not have changed the result.’” Ashton v. Sierrita Mining & Ranching, quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2859 (1973).
  • Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    The cases interpreting these two rules have established four requirements for newly discovered evidence that we find apply to this case: 1 (1) the newly discovered evidence must have been in existence at the time of trial, , , (2) the evidence must not have been possessed by the party seeking relief, , Roberts ; (3) that party must not have known of the evidence, Lawless v. St.
  • Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Delbridge v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 893 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    see also 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2859 (1973).
  • Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 812 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    11 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2859 (1973).
  • Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Roberts v. Morgensen Motors 659 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    quoting from 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2859 (1973).
  • Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Staffco, , , Modla v. Parker, 17 Ariz.App.
  • Ohio Farmers Insurance v. Norman 594 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Ohio Farmers Insurance v. Norman 594 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Ashton v. Sierrita Min *333 ing and Ranching