Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kemble v. Porter, 357 P.2d 155.

37 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
Engineers v. 5 (“[T]he appealability of an order ‘turns [up]on the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from.’” ()).
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Stated differently, the order “was clearly final on all of [MCA’s] rights in the affected property.” see Huston v. F.D.I.C., 800 S.W.2d 845, 847 (Tex.
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Santa Maria v. Najera 214 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-19 , (“The right [to appeal] is both defined and limited by A.R.S.
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hence, its order was the “final order in the case.” (if, following court’s order, there is “nothing left of the case to dispose of,” order is final and appealable); McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), , (final order is one that disposes of the case, leaving no question open for the court’s determination).
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp. 916 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“[Tjhe appealability of an order ‘turns on the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from.’ ” , ( , ).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Don 799 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Don 799 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Del E. Webb Communities, Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, In and For the County of Pima, , Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933, , County of Pima v. State Department of Revenue, Division of Property and Special Taxes
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1977
We agree with the principle that the appealability of an order “turns on the character of the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed from.” , Glinski v. United States, 93 F.2d 418, 420 (7th Cir., 1937).
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Engineers v. Sharpe 573 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
This rationale seems all the more logical when we look to the character of the proceedings which will arise in the trial court from the order setting aside the summary judgment
Meyer v. Campbell 480 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Meyer v. Campbell 480 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
while considering the appealability of an order denying the appellants’ motion to vacate and set aside an execution sale, correctly summarized the essential nature of the denial of a motion for summary judgment, stating: “The denial of the motion was in many important respects like the denial of
In the Matter of Wilson 470 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1970
In the Matter of Wilson 470 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1970
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Porter v. Porter 416 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1966
Harris v. Howard P. Foley Co. 409 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Harris v. Howard P. Foley Co. 409 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 404 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima 404 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Porter v. Porter 403 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Porter v. Porter 403 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
that the order denying the motion to set aside the execution sale was not an appeal-able order and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Fernandez v. Garza 380 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1963
Fernandez v. Garza 380 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1963