Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodriquez v. Williams, 451 P.2d 609.

42 citing documents.

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.