Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reidy v. O'Malley Lumber Company, 374 P.2d 882.

30 citing documents.

McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See generally Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., (“A court may take judicial notice of the record in another action tried in the same court.” (citations omitted)); Ariz. R. Evid.
Emily B., Andrew D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Emily B., Andrew D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A court may take judicial notice of the record in another action tried in the same court.” Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., (1962); see Ariz. R. Evid.
Ghb Construction v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ghb Construction v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (2017); see Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co.
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To qualify as such, the orders must: (1) raise an issue “different from those that could have been raised on appeal from the underlying judgment,” and (2) “either affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement.” ¶ 9 (2017) (citing Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., -27 (App. 1995)).
Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich Ariz. 2017
Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich Ariz. 2017
See Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., –27 (App. 1995).
London v. Karatz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
London v. Karatz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cf. Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., –33, (stating that a court may take judicial notice of the record in another action in the same court, and concluding that the trial court in a specific performance action properly took into consideration a prior disposition in another case when the cases dealt with identical questions of
ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at 226-27 (noting “the issues raised by the appeal from the [special order after final judgment] must be different from those that would arise from an appeal from the underlying judgment”) (citing Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., and Lakin v. Watkins Assoc.
Rodriguez v. Steddom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rodriguez v. Steddom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 RODRIGUEZ v. STEDDOM Decision of the Court November order because trial court had addressed all substantive issues in its September order); see also Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., (“An order made after judgment is not appealable if the appeal presents the same question as would be presented on an appeal from the judgment.”).
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Id.; accord Reidy v. O’Malley Lum- *227 ber Co., , (citing Hilliker v. Board of Trustees, 91 Cal.App.
State v. Lerma 637 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Lerma 637 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
“An order made after judgment is not appealable if the appeal presents the same question as would be presented on an appeal from the judgment.” Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Company
State v. Astorga 547 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Astorga 547 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Company
Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company 534 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company 534 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co.
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company 462 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Co., , ; , ; , , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, Section 202; C. T. McCormick
Garrett v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford 427 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Garrett v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford 427 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Company
Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler 419 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1966
Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler 419 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1966
Reidy v. O’Malley Lumber Company, , ; , .