Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Wondergem, 419 P.2d 552.

33 citing documents.

15 UP-VW v. LUNA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
15 UP-VW v. LUNA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“jurisdictional requirements must be strictly complied with to achieve entrance to appellate review.”).
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
see also Riley v. County of Cochise, 10 Ariz.App.
Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
The distinction between the rendition of judgment and the entry of judgment is important since the entry starts the time for appeal running, P.2d 552 (1966), and allows execution.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605 594 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605 594 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Anderson v. Fidelity Southern Ins. Corp. 582 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Anderson v. Fidelity Southern Ins. Corp. 582 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Spriggel v. County of Maricopa 487 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Spriggel v. County of Maricopa 487 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rules 54(a) and 58(a), Rules of Civil'Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Chapman v. Harger 452 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Chapman v. Harger 452 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
The records from 1 CA-CIV 180
Ashley v. Kramer 442 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Ashley v. Kramer 442 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
decided on 2 November 1966.
Thomas v. Western Savings and Loan Association 433 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Thomas v. Western Savings and Loan Association 433 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 427 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 427 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
*400 , particularly in relation to the use of the record heretofore filed in this Court.
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 423 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 423 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
However, as this Court has indicated previously in Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State, supra, , if the parties timely perfect an appeal from a final judgment, and so stipulate, we will consider the briefs and records filed in this appeal in our determination of the subsequent appeal.
Zoellner v. Zoellner 422 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Zoellner v. Zoellner 422 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Howard P. Foley Co. v. Harris, supra
Gabriel Ex Rel. Gabriel v. Murphy 421 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gabriel Ex Rel. Gabriel v. Murphy 421 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
And before this Court may have jurisdiction to consider a matter on appeal, an appellant must comply with the rules and statutes concerning appeals: “Appeal being a matter of statutory privilege rather than a right, statutory pro *442 visions establishing jurisdictional requirements must be strictly complied with to achieve entrance to appellate review.”
Pegler v. Sullivan 418 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by