Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gorman v. City of Phoenix, 731 P.2d 74.

70 citing documents.

Olen v. Couch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Olen v. Couch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
4 OLEN, et al. v. COUCH, et al. Decision of the Court discretion); (discussing Rule 60(b)).
Saad v. Shinohara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Saad v. Shinohara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
n.4 (1987) (explaining the rule providing for the dismissal of cases placed on the inactive calendar for two months “is not self-executing and that a written order of dismissal is required”).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dominguez v. National Shotcrete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Distinguished Dominguez v. National Shotcrete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5 DOMINGUEZ v. NATIONAL SHOTCRETE Decision of the Court ¶16 to argue he diligently and vigorously prosecuted the case, but Gorman is distinguishable from this case.
State v. Linares 388 P.3d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Linares 388 P.3d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beltz v. Greystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beltz v. Greystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Former Rule 38.1 and its predecessor, Uniform Rule V, were procedural rules “designed to rid court calendars of inactive or abandoned cases and to prod the judge and the attorneys involved to bring cases to trial as quickly as possible.”
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Douros v. Douros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Douros v. Douros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(a party “must show ‘extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice’ ...
Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 12 , ( , ¶ 4 , ).
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Our case law permits the use of Rule 60(c)(6) in " 'extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice,' other than or in addition to those circumstances set out in clauses (1) through (5).” , , Edsall v. Superior Court (Edsall)
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Go rman v. C ity of Phoen ix, 2 P .3d 670, 672 (A pp. 1999).
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(stating that "[t]he purpose of [former] Uniform Rule V(e) is procedural, not substantive") [10] ; , ("[T]he interests of justice are best served by a trial on the merits."); White, 167 Ariz. at 92 , 804 P.2d at 821 (Lankford
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Moreover, our supreme court has held that procedural devices “should not be used to trap the unwary.”
ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. 50 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. 50 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(court abuses its discretion by “misapplying] law or legal principle^]”).
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 999 P.2d 198 Ariz. 2000
-82 , -77 (1987); Bickerstaff, 141 Ariz. at 632 , 688 P.2d at 640 .
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martinez v. Binsfield 990 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Mem’l Coliseum, , 89, , 199 (App.1993).
Panzino v. City of Phoenix 990 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-82 , -77 (1987); Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc.
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
¶ 21 For instance, , the plaintiff filed a motion to set and certificate of readiness and the defendant filed a controverting certificate.
McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUM 859 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Copeland v. ARIZONA VET. MEM. COLISEUM 859 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(discussing Rule 60(c)); , (discussing Rule 60(c) and A.R.S.
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
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