Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Birmingham, 392 P.2d 775.

175 citing documents.

Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
Corp., (requiring signed writing for appeal of order denying motion for new trial); (requiring signed written order for appeal of permanent injunction).
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Focal Point, -30, -34 (1986) (minute entry disposing of case appealable if written, signed by a judge, and filed with clerk of court); State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 111, (“The word ‘order’ is synonymous with the words ‘judgment’ and ‘decree’ [for purposes of §12-2101].”).
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“[Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights; whereas the [procedural] law is that which prescribes the method of enforcing the right or obtaining redress for its invasion.”
In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 705 , 102 S.Ct.
Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Graf v. Whitaker 966 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
§§ 12-2101 and 12-120.21; , -11
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Although we may circumvent this amendment procedure when faced with a conflict between a rule and the constitutional rights of defendants, , reh’g, , we cannot simply rewrite a rule by decision.
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“Uniformly, the substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights; whereas the ..., remedial or procedural law is that which prescribes the method of enforcing the right or obtaining redress for its invasion.”
State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
: Uniformly the substantive law is that which creates, defines and regulates rights; whereas the adjective, remedial or procedural law is that which prescribes the method of enforcing the right or obtaining redress for its invasion.
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In an analogous case having to do with appeals, , the Arizona Supreme Court stated: We now are of the opinion that while the right to appeal is substantive the manner in which the right may be exercised is subject to control through the use of procedural rules.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
It is often said the adjective law pertains to and prescribes the practice, method, procedure or legal machinery by which the substantive law is enforced or made effective.”
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. General Electric Supply Co. 745 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
392 P.2d *192 775, 776 (1964).
State v. Hawkins 680 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Hawkins 680 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grigg v. Superior Court 669 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Grigg v. Superior Court 669 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Herzog v. Reinhardt, 2 Ariz.App.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933 660 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933 660 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1982
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981