Cited by

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

71 citing documents.

Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Perry v. County of Maricopa 808 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Perry v. County of Maricopa 808 P.2d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
Jepson v. New 792 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1990
If diligence is the hallmark for relief under the rule, , and diligence is also the prime requisite for relief under the statute as interpreted by the majority, then why would the legislature have enacted the statute to supplement the rule?
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The requirements for relief from Rule V dismissal under Rule 60(c)(6) have been discussed at length in Bickerstaff v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., , , and Cline v. Ticor Title Ins.
Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Jepson v. New 772 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
the supreme court refined this holding, stating: When, as here, the expiration of the statute of limitations turns a dismissal without prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice, the trial court must take an especially hard look at the actual circumstances of the case before it.
King v. Industrial Commission 771 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
King v. Industrial Commission 771 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Accordingly, “justice requires that when possible a matter be determined upon its merits.”
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc. 772 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Flynn argues that the trial court’s
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the Arizona Supreme Court stated that Uniform Rule V “should not be used to trap the unwary or the momentarily negligent.” However, diligence is the prime criterion of excusability.
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
regarding the circumstances in which Rule 60(c) relief should be granted in cases dismissed under Rule V, we allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs directed to a discussion of the effect of Gorman on this appeal.
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987