Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brooks v. State, 636 P.2d 1200.

53 citing documents.

Shubhrananda v. Earle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 The Guinn ruling was premised on the narrow exception to the “final judgment rule” P.2d 1200 (1981), which treats a premature notice of appeal as timely if it is filed when there are no further substantive decisions to be made by the fact- finder, even though a final order has not been issued.
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kemp v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 481, ¶ 19, 296 P.3d at 1017 (-22, -04 (1981) and stating “if the ruling preceding the notice of appeal is a final decision .
Camasura v. Camasura 358 P.3d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(referencing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) and State Bar Committee Notes to the 1961 Amendment to the Rule).
Mark S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(premature appeal from minute entry where appellee is not prejudiced and a subsequent final judgment is entered need not be dismissed).
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding a premature appeal taken from an unsigned minute entry order ruling on post-trial motion need not be dismissed where “no appellee was prejudiced and .
Daurio v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lopez v. Food City 322 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Nonetheless, , in which our supreme court held that “a premature appeal from a minute entry order in which no appellee was prejudiced and in which a subsequent final judgment was entered over which jurisdiction may be exercised need not be dismissed.” -81, ¶¶ 13-19 , 296 P.3
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n., ¶ 37 , ( , ).
Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(referencing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) and respective State Bar Committee Notes in the 1961 Amendment to the Rule).
Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc. 277 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. America West Airlines, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
P.2d 1200 (1981), our supreme court announced a limited exception to the final judgment rule that allowed premature notices of appeal to be considered “‘after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment, if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merel
State of Arizona v. Ramon Limon 270 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
6 but merely note it was filed before the trial court’s order dismissing the action.
Craig v. Craig 253 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2011
as Craig ________________________________________________________________ H U R W I T Z, Vice Chief Justice ¶1 We stated thirty years ago that appellate courts should “dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the case where a litigant attempts to appeal where a motion is still pending in the trial court.”
Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
*92 -22 , -04 (1981) (premature appeal need not be dismissed when court subsequently enters final judgment).
Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
419-22, , 1201-04 (1981).
AKSAMIT v. Krahn 227 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Riendeau v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 225 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
117— 18, -39 (App.1997) (-22 , -04 (1981)).
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 11 , (noting premature notice of appeal should not be dismissed when “only ministerial tasks remained to accomplish the entry of a final judgment”).
Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Father’s Premature Appeal ¶ 11 -20 , -02 (1981), the supreme court held that a notice of appeal filed after the denial of a motion for new trial but before the entry of final judgment was sufficient to secure appellate jurisdiction.
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See ARCAP 9(b) (“[e]ntry of an order occurs when a signed written order is filed with the clerk of the superior court.”); , 92 n. 3, ¶ 6, , 610 n. 3 (2006); , Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal.
Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
See Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418, 420-21, -03 (1981).
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
("[A] premature appeal from a minute entry order in which no appellee was prejudiced and in which a subsequent final judgment was entered over which jurisdiction may be exercised need not be dismissed.").
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Comeau v. Ariz. State Bd.
Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Decola v. Freyer 6 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 993 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Counterman 992 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Joe P. Guinn & State Farm v. Schweitzer 945 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Barassi v. Matison, *560 , (holding a notice of appeal from a minute entry followed by a subsequent final judgment conferred jurisdiction on the appellate court); , (holding a notice of appeal from a minute entry order dismissing fewer than all claims was sufficient to perfect an appeal
Mayer v. State 908 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Though the Arizona rule is worded differently to permit premature appeals, , both rules refer to the same deadline for filing at issue here.
Baumann v. Tuton 884 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
For support, , : “It should be noted that the Arizona appellate courts will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the case where a litigant attempts to appeal where a motion is still pending in the trial court or where there is no final judgment.” 130 Ariz. at 422 , 636 P.2d at 1204 .
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
[2] , (premature notice of appeal did not preclude appellate jurisdiction; purpose behind time requirements is still served even when notice is filed too early).
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(premature notice of appeal did not preclude appellate jurisdiction; purpose behind time requirements is still served even when notice is filed too early).
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
tered in an action or special proceeding commenced in a superior court, or brought into a superior court from any other court____ We require an appeal be taken from a final judgment to “avoid the constant disruption of the trial process, to prevent appellate courts from considering issues that may be addressed later in trial, and to promote efficiency____”
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peaton 812 P.2d 1002 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
: The underlying rationale of requiring a final judgment for appealability is to avoid the constant disruption of the trial process, to prevent appellate courts from considering issues that may be addressed later in trial, and to promote efficiency, that is, encourage the consolidation in one appeal of all error
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Tempe Life Care Village, Inc. v. City of Tempe 714 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
that under the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure which were enacted in 1977 a premature appeal is not jurisdiction-ally defective.