Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Black v. Industrial Commission, 317 P.2d 553.

32 citing documents.

David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
Comm’n, 6 overruled in part by Hash’s ); see also Am.
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Comm’n, (“We have consistently held that the function of an order or judgment nunc pro tunc is to make the record speak the truth and that such power is inherent in the court.
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The issue on appeal was “whether a trial court may modify a defendant’s conditions of probation to impose restitution after probation has been ordered and in the absence of any grounds supporting its 2 -56 (1957), to argue that “a nunc pro tunc order is [per se] inappropriate and an abuse of discretion.” The portion of that case cited by Petitioner simply states that a nunc pro tunc order is
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Comm’n, ); Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Comm’n, , (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting) (“[Pronouncement is ...
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
70 A.L.R.2d 1119 (1957), but while the order was ineffective as a nunc pro tunc order, it was an effective determination order under Rule 54(b) as of April 15, 1960, the date the order was made.
Allen v. Allen 628 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Allen v. Allen 628 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The state bar committee notes following the rule explain the amendment as follows: Black v. Industrial Commissions [sic], , has been viewed by some as prohibiting the entry of an order or judgment nunc pro tunc in Arizona.
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
rev’d on other grounds, , adopted the minority position that domestic nunc pro tunc judgments may be collaterally attacked unless the judgment recites on its face that competent evidence was presented to sustain the judgment or the court makes a record disclosin
State v. Johnson 557 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1976
State v. Johnson 557 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1976
It is to record now for then an order actually made or a judgment actually rendered which through some oversight or inadvertence was never entered upon the records of the court by the clerk or which was incorrectly entered, (citations omitted)” , -556 (1957).
Feltman v. Coulter 528 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1974
Feltman v. Coulter 528 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1974
Means v. Industrial Commission 515 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1973
Means v. Industrial Commission 515 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1973
and State Compensation Fund v. Foughty, 13 Ariz.App.
Estate of Hash v. Henderson 507 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1973
Overruled Estate of Hash v. Henderson 507 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1973
which may be inconsistent with or contrary to the foregoing opinion is hereby overruled.
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Justice Struckmeyer’s dissent, concurred with by Justice Johnson, the distinction between *532 “rendition” and “entry” of judgment was again drawn.
Associates Finance Corporation v. Scott 411 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Associates Finance Corporation v. Scott 411 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
70 A.L.R.2d 1119 (1957).
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
Mageary v. Hoyt 369 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1962
70 A.L.R.2d 1119 (1957), but while the order was ineffective as a nunc pro tunc order, it was an effective determination order under rule 54(b) as of April 15, 1960, the date the order was made.
McConnell v. Newman 351 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1960
McConnell v. Newman 351 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1960
That order was invalid as an order “nunc pro tunc” , , , .