DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tippit v. Lahr, 646 P.2d 291.

32 citing documents.

  • Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Second, Rule 60(b) is not an alternative to appeal; rather, its primary purpose is to “allow relief from judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstances that cannot be remedied by legal review.” –09 (App. 1982); see also Ariz. State Dep’t of Econ.
  • Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    [the rule] is primarily intended to allow relief from 8 SLOAN v. FARMERS, et al. Decision of the Court judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstances that cannot be remedied by legal review.” –09 (App. 1982).
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶28 Finally, we also find unavailing Wife’s for her argument that Husband was required to show his damages could not be remedied by other means, such as a civil lawsuit.
  • Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Instead, it “is primarily intended to allow relief from judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstances that cannot be remedied by legal review.” Hyman, 150 Ariz. at 446, 447 (–09 (App. 1982)).
  • McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • McAdams v. Corizon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Smith v. Smith 330 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Smith v. Smith 330 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See id.; , (noting error of law does not render judgment void where court has jurisdiction over both subject matter and parties).
  • Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    [but] is primarily intended to allow relief from judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstances that cannot be remedied by legal review.” -09 , -94 (App.1982).
  • Waldren v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 131 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Waldren v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 131 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    (-09 , 646 *-94 (App.1982)) (emphasis added).
  • Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
  • Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
    1 This rule “ ‘is primarily intended to allow relief from judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstances that cannot be remedied by legal review.’” Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., , (-09 , -94 (1982)).
  • Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    ("While the precise scope of Rule 60(c) relief defies neat encapsulation, it is clear that the rule, except as it applies to void judgments, is primarily intended to allow relief from judgments that, although perhaps legally faultless, are unjust because of extraordinary circumstanc
  • Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Perras v. Perras 726 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Perras v. Perras 726 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Roszko v. Roszko 705 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Roszko v. Roszko 705 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Craig v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 687 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    Rule 60(c)(6) provides, in part: “On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” It is established that Rule 60(c) is not an alternative to filing an appeal, , or to other procedures for obtaining review of erroneous legal rulings such as a motion for new trial or amended judgment under Rule 59.
  • De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
  • De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983