Arizona Corp. Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.
Cited by
- Hill v. City of Phoenix 975 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1999
- Joe P. Guinn & State Farm v. Schweitzer 945 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. 1997
- Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. 1997
- McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 945 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. 1997
- Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. 1969
- Rhodes v. Hirsch 429 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. 1967
- Hanen v. Willis 423 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1967
- Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
- City of Tucson v. Wondergem 419 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. 1966
- Associates Finance Corporation v. Scott 411 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. 1966
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Barth v. County of Apache 162 P. 62
- Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Commission 182 P.2d 937
- In Re Estate of Mikkelson 228 N.W. 174
Opinion text
WINDES, Justice (dissenting). Justice STRUCKMEYER and I feel that this appeal should not be dismissed. One of the principal purposes of the new rules of civil procedure is to dispose of cases on the merits, irrespective of technical, harmless errors. Under the federal rules, which are the same as ours on this subject, it is well established that errors of the character involved herein will be ignored when the appellee has been neither misled nor harmed. Bates v. Batte, 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 142 , certiorari denied 342 U.S. 815 , 72 S.Ct. 29 , 96 L.Ed. 616 ; Hoiness v. United States, 335 U. S. 297 , 69 S.Ct. 70 , 93 L.Ed. 16 ; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Palmer, 350 U.S. 944 , 76 S.Ct. 321 , 100 L. Ed. 830 , reversing, 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 876 . The Bates case and the State Farm Mutual case presented the same question as that before us in this case. In the former the court of appeals held [ 187 F.2d 143 ] “that the defects in the appeal are not sufficiently substantial to deprive us of jurisdiction.” In the latter case the court of appeals dismissed the appeal and the supreme court of the United States reversed on the authority of Hoiness v. United States, supra. *139 Unquestionably, appellant committed technical error but since the final appealable judgment was in existence at the time the appeal was taken and it was the same as the order designated in the notice of appeal, no one could have understood it as other than an intention to test the validity of the final judgment. We do not think this court should be so hypertechnical as to refuse to hear the merits of this appeal and risk the danger of a resulting injustice. Our view is the appeal should not be dismissed. STRUCKMEYER, J., concurs in this dissent.