Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Department of Economic Security v. Mahoney, 540 P.2d 153.

52 citing documents.

Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Mahoney, (explaining that Rule 60(b) is not a “substitute for appeal” or a “vehicle for relitigating issues”).2 A. Rule 60(b)(3) ¶10 Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for an opposing party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
Williams v. McLaughlin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Williams v. McLaughlin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
WILLIAMS v. MCLAUGHLIN, (explaining that rule is not “designed to be a substitute for appeal”).1 ¶11 Petitioner next contends the probate court should have vacated its attorney fee award to the Estate as void under Rule 60(b)(4).
Jessica P. v. Dcs, H.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jessica P. v. Dcs, H.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Mahoney, ("Termination of the parent-child relationship should not be considered a panacea but should be resorted to only when concerted efforts to preserve the relationship fails.").
Shawn M. v. Dcs, X.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn M. v. Dcs, X.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Terisa C., Lawrence E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Terisa C., Lawrence E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Mahoney, (“Termination of the parent-child relationship should not be considered a panacea but should be resorted to only when concerted effort to preserve the relationship fails.”).
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Vanessa H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 159 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 995 P.2d 682 Ariz. 2000
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 971 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 971 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Mahoney, , see also JS-500274, 167 Ariz. at 4-5 , 804 P.2d at 733 -34 and cases cited therein.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-120171 905 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-5209 and JS-4963
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501904 884 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. Mahoney in and for the County of Pima
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Lopez 864 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Lopez 864 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Rule 60(c) is not designed to be a substitute for appeal, , nor is this one of the specific situations enumerated in § 20-676 which applies only to trial court decisions “based on the default of the insolvent insurer or its failure to defend an insured.” Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance, , (Ap
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA 33794 828 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA 33794 828 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Matter of Juvenile Action No. 5666-J
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
v. Mahoney, , (termination of the parent-child relationship should not be considered a panacea but should be resorted to only when concerted efforts to preserve the relationship fails); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 25 Ariz.App.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520 756 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520 756 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963 692 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963 692 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-828 659 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
In re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-828 659 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
3) The record shows many efforts to rehabilitate and reunite the members of this family
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
266 (1949) 2 ; , 11 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2864, at 211-12 (1973).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4283 653 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4283 653 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
While the Department of Economic Security had the responsibility to make all reasonable efforts to preserve the family relationship, , its responsibility was not without limits and at some point the mother was required to make a good faith effort to reunite the family.
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Anderson v. Hawkins 628 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Anderson v. Hawkins 628 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Thus these grounds cannot be used as a basis for vacating the judgment, (citation omitted)” , we observed: “Rule 60(c) is not designed to be a substitute for appeal (citation omitted), nor is it designed to be a vehicle for relitigating issues, (citation omitted)” -165 , -984 (1979), the court acknowledged: “...
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-624 616 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-624 616 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
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
Subsection (6) allows the court to grant relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” However, , : Rule 60(c) is not designed to be a substitute for appeal, Kowall v. United States, 53 F.R.D.
Gendron v. Skyline Bel Air Estates 590 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gendron v. Skyline Bel Air Estates 590 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979