Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Thorn, 330 P.3d 973.
-
RODRIGUEZ v. OPENDOOR
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015) (our jurisdiction extends only to matters identified in a timely notice of appeal); ¶ 5 (App. 2014); ARCAP 8(d).
- Munoz v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Barari v. Burgess
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Under Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 9(a), a notice of appeal must be filed within “30 days after entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken[.]” “The failure to file a notice within thirty days deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction except to dismiss the attempted appeal.” ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
-
Flores v. Florian
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 5 (App. 2014) (we “only acquire[] jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal”).
-
Ngaruiya v. Gill
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
• On page 16, the brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216, 220 ¶ 15 (App. 2014).
-
Bischof v. Pellascio
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We “only acquire[] jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal.” ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
- O'SULLIVAN-SCHULTZ v. KORMAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Servin v. state/quezada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Servin v. state/quezada
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 35 (App. 2014) (“Having successfully persuaded the court to follow this approach, he cannot now argue it was erroneous.”).
- Anderson v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Anderson v. Winston
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The party invoking judicial estoppel must show three requirements: “(1) the parties must be the same, (2) the question involved must be the same, and (3) the party asserting the inconsistent position must have been successful in the prior judicial proceeding.” ¶ 27 (App. 2014) (citation modified).
- Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Murrieta v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-19 ¶¶ 5-10 (App. 2014) (holding we lack jurisdiction where amended notice of appeal is untimely).
- Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai Ariz. 2025
-
Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai
Ariz. 2025
(“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate review.”); ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[T]his court only acquires jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal.”); ARCAP 8(d) (“Failure of an appellant or cross-appellant to perform an act other than the timely filing a notice of appeal or cross-appeal does not affect the appellate court’s jurisdictio
- Boozer v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Boozer v. Boozer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See ARCAP 9(a); ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“The failure to file a notice within thirty days deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction except to dismiss the attempted appeal.”).
- Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See ARCAP 9(a); ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
- Benetich v. Benetich, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Benetich v. Benetich, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Myers v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Myers v. Myers
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Compare id., with ¶ 27 (App. 2014) (“Judicial estoppel prevents a party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding .
- Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Goodwin v. Goodwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Custom Accounting v. Sal E. Mander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Custom Accounting v. Sal E. Mander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Li v. Zhao Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Li v. Zhao
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 25- 211(A)(1) (treating gifted property as sole and separate property); ¶ 21 (App. 2014) (affirming family court’s authority to order return of party’s sole and separate property).
- Dawson v. Dawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Dawson v. Dawson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
ARCAP 9(a); ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[T]his court only acquires jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal.”) ().
- Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Goodhope v. Goodhope
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 25-318(A), (E) (2008); ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (noting Weaver's use of "the term 'jurisdiction' in a broader, now antiquated, sense actually referring to courts' authority under the specific controlling statute rather than subject-matter jurisdiction").
- Bennie v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Bennie v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Terry v. UPS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Terry v. UPS
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co. of Ariz., ¶ 18 (App. 2007) (“[A]rguments raised for the first time on appeal are untimely and deemed waived.”); ¶ 27 (App 2014) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking different factual positions in different phases of litigation).
- Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Decision of the Court Thorn, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[T]his court only acquires jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal.”).
- Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Snook v. Aguilar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2014) (distinguishing Weaver and concluding that subject matter jurisdiction is not “coterminous” with the family court’s authority to act pursuant to the marital statutes).
- Green v. Rhoads Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Green v. Rhoads
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[T]his court only acquires jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely filed notice of appeal.”)
- Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Palanti v. Palanti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020