Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Deddens, 379 P.2d 963.

39 citing documents.

SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
SANCHEZ v. SHAWCROFT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 16 (App. 2015) (“[W]e conclude that entry of a true judgment [under Rule 76] requires an affirmative act by the court.”); (holding predecessor to present Rule 38.1, which governs dismissal of cases on the dismissal calendar, “is not self-executing”).
Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hobson v. Chen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(construing prior rule); (same); –51 (1963) (even after the case has been dismissed, the court has discretion to grant relief from the order dismissing the case).
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶18 Notwithstanding this longstanding interpretation of § 12- 2101(A)(3), includes a sentence that conflicts with the principles recognized in Boehringer and Garza.
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White argues Phillips was wrongly decided, and is contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s
Eastwood v. Atlas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Eastwood v. Atlas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We note that Eastwood’s appeal from the 3 EASTWOOD v. ATLAS et al. Decision of the Court Ariz. 247, 250, (holding that an order dismissing a case for lack of prosecution is an appealable order).
BCAZ Corp. v. Helgoe 976 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
BCAZ Corp. v. Helgoe 976 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
to place a sword in the hands of defendants’ attorneys which will enable them to *17 abruptly terminate litigation.” -50 , -65 (1963).
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
60(c), provided [that] the good cause required by Rule V(d)(2) [now Rule V(e)(2) ] is shown.”
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
see abo Blech v. Blech, 6 Ariz.App.
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Ursel v. Pizzo 614 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Ursel v. Pizzo 614 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
applicable to this type of order, , the trial court exercised a sound discretion in keeping with the desirable legal objective that the case be decided upon the merits.
Black v. Greer 498 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Black v. Greer 498 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
It was not intended, to place a sword in the hands of defendants’ attorneys which will enable them to abruptly terminate litigation if their opponents miss a deadline.” -250 , -965 (1963).
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971
Thunderbird Farms v. Hernandez 464 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Thunderbird Farms v. Hernandez 464 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
applicable to this type of order, , the trial court exercised a sound discretion in keeping with the desirable legal objective that the case be decided upon the merits.
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-51 , 141 P. 126, 127 (1914); A.R.S.
Blech v. Blech 430 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Blech v. Blech 430 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
which holds that the rule is not self-executing and requires a dismissal order in writing.
Thompson v. Mecey 416 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1966
Thompson v. Mecey 416 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1966
Wine Glass Ranches, Inc. v. Deddens 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963
Wine Glass Ranches, Inc. v. Deddens 379 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1963