Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodriquez v. Williams, 451 P.2d 609.
-
RODRIGUEZ v. OPENDOOR
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(looking “to substance rather than to form” in determining intended effect of pleading).
- State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez 537 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
-
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez
537 P.3d 794
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
See, (“We have frequently held that we prefer to determine cases on their merits rather than on points of procedure.”); (“Piecemeal litigation is an evil to be avoided.”).
- Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. 2023
- Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. 2023
- Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
and resolved by the juvenile court.” Generally, “when portions of a trial record are not available because they no longer exist, the appellate court should reinstate the superior court’s jurisdiction for reconstruction of the record and thereby provide the appellant a reasonable opportunity to pursue the appeal.” ¶ 11 (App. 2017) (–83 (1969)).
- Vega v. Cipres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Vega v. Cipres
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
When the record of proceedings is unavailable for some unexpected reason, the proper procedure “is to file in the court in which the appeal is pending, a motion to suspend the progress of the appeal and to reinstate the [superior] court’s jurisdiction over the case for the limited purpose of reconstructing the record.” (emphasis added).
- Fieber v. Weisner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Fieber v. Weisner
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Constr., ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (noting that courts have a duty to seek any reasonable interpretation that would reconcile documents and give meaning to all their terms); (looking “to substance rather than to form” in determining intended effect of pleadings).
- Bell & 63rd v. Auto-Owners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Bell & 63rd v. Auto-Owners
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, (“[W]e prefer to determine cases on their merits rather than on points of procedure.”).
- In the Matter of Colton P. 397 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
In the Matter of Colton P.
397 P.3d 1037
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Opinion of the Court ¶8 Our supreme court has held that when a portion of the record is destroyed or unavailable, the proper procedure “is to file in the court in which the appeal is pending, a motion to suspend the progress of the appeal and to reinstate the [superior] court’s jurisdiction over the case for the limited purpose of reconstructing the record.” (emphasis added).
- Runyard v. Runyard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Runyard v. Runyard
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(ruling that when a portion of the record is destroyed or 2 Wife states the court had also ordered Husband to pay her medical bills pending the dissolution, but the minute entry from the temporary orders hearing reflects that the court simply advised Husband that medical bills Wife incurred during
- Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Scottsdale v. Fortiff
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“We have frequently held that we prefer to determine cases on their merits rather than on points of procedure.”) ().
- In Re: Patricia E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- In Re: Patricia E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Phoenix v. Cortes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Not wanting to elevate form over forms of pleading or motions are required.”); (looking “to substance rather than to form” in determining intended effect of pleading).
- Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Atkinson v. McIndoo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 8(e)(1) (“No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.”); (looking “to substance rather than to form” in determining intended effect of pleading).
- Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
- Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
- Webb v. State 977 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Webb v. State
977 P.2d 839
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(stating that reviewing courts prefer to look to substance rather than form); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
- Apache East, Inc. v. Means 601 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- Apache East, Inc. v. Means 601 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 550 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1976
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 535 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Arizona Air Pollution Control Hearing Board 535 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
- Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
- Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
- Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
- Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
- American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
-
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally
451 P.2d 882
Ariz. 1969
294, Pleading, § 11.” We said in Rodriquez v. Williams & Navajo Freight, , : “We have frequently held that we prefer to determine cases on their merits rather than on points of procedure.