Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc., 422 P.2d 184.

46 citing documents.

Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
See In re $26,980 U.S. Currency, (failure to respond to argument in answering brief may be construed as confession of error); see also Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., (principle that failure to file answering brief constitutes confession of error “equally applicable” when appellee fails to respond to specific issue in answering brief).
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aloia v. Biological Resource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 9 (App. 2014); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc.
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 12-2101 and elsewhere authorizing the appeal of a particular kind of decision.”); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores, , (construing statutory predecessor to A.R.S.
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 12-2101 and elsewhere authorizing the appeal of a particular kind of decision.”); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores, (construing statutory predecessor to A.R.S.
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., (“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that an appellee’s failure to [f]ile an answering brief where there are debatable issues constitutes a confession of reversible error.
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dept. Stores of Ariz., Inc.
Signs v. Merziotis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Signs v. Merziotis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 12-2101(A)(5)(b), which may be appealed “at any stage of the case in which application for the judgment is made.” Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., ( 245 P. 366, 369 (1926), 193 P. 1019, 1019 (1920)).
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Where multiple claims are involved, and but one is adjudicated, absent the express ‘determination and direction’ as set forth in Rule-54(b), the judgment is merely interlocutory.” Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc.
Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Pulaski, 127 Ariz. at 218 n. 3, 619 P.2d at 490 ; ("[A]n interlocutory order which is made appealable by statute does not require the express ‘determination and direction’ [of appealability under Rule 54(b) ].").
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
296, 298 , (restraining order continued in effect after motion to dissolve becomes appealable preliminary injunction); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., , (appeal may be taken from order granting or refusing to grant injunction at any stage of proceeding in which application for injunction is made).
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Although we may treat Gilbert’s failure to respond to this argument in her answering brief as a confession of error, In re One (1) Rolex Brand Man’s Watch, , Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc., , we hesitate to do so where, as here, there was no error.
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep't Stores of Arizona, Inc., see also A.R.S.
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
See also Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores, -55 , -86 (1967).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Much the same situation faced Division Two in Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Arizona, Inc.
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 791 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
P.2d 184 (1967) (order refusing preliminary injunction appealable without Rule 54(b) findings under A.R.S.
State v. Greenlee County Justice Court 756 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Greenlee County Justice Court 756 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc.
Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Smith v. Graham County Community College District 600 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Smith v. Graham County Community College District 600 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
See also, Bulova Watch Company v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc.
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Greenfield v. Cheek 593 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
While we recognize in certain instances that this will be treated in this court as a concession by the opposing party (see, for example, , ), we decline to so treat it in this case in order that the matter can be decided on the merits.
Hecla Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission 580 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hecla Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission 580 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Bulova Watch Company v. Super City Depart *315 ment Stores of Arizona, Inc.
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tiffany Construction Co. v. Hancock & Kelley Construction Co. 539 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Schultz v. Hinshaw 514 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Schultz v. Hinshaw 514 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Transport Workers Union, Local 502 v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 464 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Transport Workers Union, Local 502 v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 464 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
which involved an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, the court stated: “An appeal may be taken from an order granting or refusing to grant an injunction at any stage of the case in which application for the injunction is made.” 4 Ariz.App.