Anonymous v. Superior Court
Cited by
- Isom v. Isom Ariz. Ct. App. 2026
- Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. 2009
- Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. 1998
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. 1990
- Berry v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. 1989
- Pace v. Pace 626 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. 1981
- United Farm Workers National Union v. Heggblade - Marguleas - Tenneco, Inc. 520 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. 1974
- State v. Wimberg 514 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. 1973
- Yaeger v. Vance 513 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. 1973
- Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. 1973
- Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 419 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. 1966
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ong Hing v. Thurston 416 P.2d 416
- Herzog v. Reinhardt 406 P.2d 738
- State v. Birmingham 392 P.2d 775
- Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 404 P.2d 721
- Haechler v. Andrews 409 P.2d 315
- Christian v. Cotten 403 P.2d 825
- Van Dyke v. Superior Court 211 P. 576
- Searles v. Haldiman 413 P.2d 860
- In Re Wright 281 P. 944
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Appellant Martin S. Rogers is prosecuting this appeal from an order of the superior court, Pima County, Arizona, finding him in contempt of court and ordering that he pay the sum of $100 to the superior court clerk to purge himself of said contempt or a bench warrant would issue for his arrest for failure to so do. Appellant thereupon filed his notice of appeal the same day. We have often reiterated the principle that an appellate court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a challenge to such jurisdiction. Ginn v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 457 , 404 P.2d 721 (1965) ; Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz.App. 421, 423 , 403 P.2d 825 (1965); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294 , 413 P.2d 860 (1966). Preliminarily, we must point out that the “order” from which this appeal is taken was a minute entry order bearing no signature of .a judge. Such order does not comport with the requirements of Rule 58 (a), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., and is therefore lacking in effectiveness for purposes of appeal. Haechler v. Andrews, 2 Ariz.App. 395, 397 , 409 P.2d 315 (1965) ; State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 112 , 392 P.2d 775 (1964). Apart from this lack of the prerequisite of “form,” the subject contempt order is not an appealable order. The lower court based its adjudication of contempt, after affording appellant a full opportunity to be heard, on appellant’s failure to appear as counsel at a scheduled court hearing. Such act has recently been classified by the Supreme Court of Arizona as a criminal contempt within the purview of A.R.S. § 12-864, as distinguished from the criminal contempt referred to in A.R.S. §§ 12-861 through 12-863. Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92 , 416 P.2d 416, 422 (1966). There being no constitutional or statutory authority conferring such right, appellant has no right of appeal. Herzog v. Reinhardt, 2 Ariz.App. 103, 104 , 406 P.2d 738 (1965) ; See also Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 24 Ariz. 508, 543 , 211 P. 576 (1922) ; In re Wright, 36 Ariz. 8, 13 , 281 P. 944 (1929) ; A.R.S. § 12-2101. Since an appeal does not lie from this contempt order, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the appeal is hereby dismissed.