DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eaton Fruit Co. v. California Spray-Chemical Corp., 426 P.2d 397.

62 citing documents.

  • CHAMPAGNE v. BOZER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • CHAMPAGNE v. BOZER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Corp., -85 ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2009).
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Spray- Chemical Corp., we suspended this appeal and revested jurisdiction with the family court to enter a “written order that resolves all the issues contained in Father’s petition.” The parties stipulated to Father’s paternity and the court entered an order establishing paternity.
  • Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Flynn v. Rodrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    In November 2014, this Court stayed Husband’s appeal pursuant to former ARCAP 9.1 and revested jurisdiction in the family court for the purpose of permitting the family court to consider an application by Wife for a signed order.
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • McNeil v. Goff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Because the November 19, 2012 minute entry was unsigned and therefore not final and appealable, so Father could apply for a signed order.
  • Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Spray-Chemical Corp., , (holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the underlying minute entry order “was not signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of the court”).
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Corp., , Kenyon, 5 Ariz.App.
  • Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
  • 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).
  • Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Following oral argument, , suspending the appeal and re-vesting jurisdiction in the superior court to consider Jachimek’s application for a signed, written order corresponding to the November 16, 2001 minute entry.
  • Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
  • Barassi v. Matison 636 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1981
    See Apache East, , 2 , Thomas v. Western Savings & Loan Association, 6 Ariz.App.
  • Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Johnson v. Nelson 627 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    In accordance with our Supreme Court’s , however, we will suspend the appeal and revest jurisdiction in the superior court so that it may enter an appropriate formal order in conformity herewith.
  • Soltes v. Jarzynka 621 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Soltes v. Jarzynka 621 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Where an appellant has failed to validly perfect an appeal by reason of the lack of a 54(b) determination in a case involving multiple claims or parties, this court has for some time followed the practice of granting motions to “suspend” , for the purpose of revesting jurisdiction in the trial court so that it may consider a motion to make a 54(b) determination of finality.
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605 594 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605 594 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    in order to permit the entry of a written order by the juvenile court, after which the appeal could be perfected under the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
  • Vander Wagen v. Hughes 505 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Vander Wagen v. Hughes 505 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Instead of dismissing the appeal, this Court, , entered its order on October 22, 1971 suspending the appeal, thereby giving plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain from the trial court a formal written appealable order.
  • Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    Though questions have been raised on appeal with regard to the cross-defendants Sloane, the merits of these issues will not be discussed in this opinion inasmuch as an appeal based upon the cross-defendant’s motion to dismiss which was granted by minute entry order is, at this time, premature
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Hamilton Mines Corp. v. Price 481 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Hamilton Mines Corp. v. Price 481 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Evans v. Lundgren 465 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Because the order denying the motion for new trial had not been reduced to writing and filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court, this court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the'appeal, , reversed on other grounds, , .
  • Seitz v. Superior Court 453 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1969
  • Seitz v. Superior Court 453 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1969
    they failed to comply with the requirement of the trial court that they dismiss the appeal-—or they did not like the order that was made, , .
  • Chapman v. Harger 452 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Chapman v. Harger 452 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    In the area of mistake or neglect, and this is the area •in which this case must fall, the law appears to be that the moving party must show that: “* * * the conduct causing the default might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc., , .