Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 132 P.3d 1187.

82 citing documents.

Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶¶ 37-40 , (“limited” Barassi exception applies when “no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial”); -07, ¶¶ 8-9, 13 , -26 (2011).
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See, ¶ 13 , Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 , -09, ¶¶ 11-14 , -47 (App.2009).
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
is ineffective and a nullity.” (internal quotation omitted); see also Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, (“Requiring timely notices of appeals following entry of final judgments also prevents two courts from assuming jurisdiction and acting at the same time.”).
Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Fields v. Oates 286 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n., ¶ 37 , ( , ).
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
*442 “We apply the same rules in construing both statutes and rules.” Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 18
Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ghadimi v. Soraya 285 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 , (stating the Barassi exception applies when “no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial”); 107, ¶¶ 8-9, 13 , 626 (2011) (also discussing the Barassi exception to the final judgmen
Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc. 277 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Atreus Communities Group v. Stardust Development, Inc. 277 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
is „ineffective‟ and a nullity”), quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n
Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. America West Airlines, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. America West Airlines, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
o the final judgment rule that allowed premature notices of appeal to be considered “‘after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment, if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.’” quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Section 15-543(A), for example, specifies the deadline by which a teacher must appeal (thirty days from the date of the board‘s 3 See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, n.3, n.3 (2006); Pima Cnty.
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
-91 (2006), as have we, , and we are bound to follow decisions of our supreme court, Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc.
Craig v. Craig 253 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2011
Craig v. Craig 253 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2011
However, the majority concluded that this Court “reaffirmed” Barassi in Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean 2 Elections Commission, ¶ 38, and therefore dismissed the appeals.
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
We interpret the provisions de novo, “applying] the same rules in construing both statutes and rules.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, , 412 ¶ 18
Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Craig v. Craig 240 P.3d 1270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 3 More recently, our supreme court reaffirmed Barassi explaining that “appellate courts should dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction while [a time-extending] motion was still pending in the trial court.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶38 , (citing Barassi 130 Ariz. at 422, 636 P.2d at 1204).
Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
But in Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the supreme court underscored its commitment to the more restrictive rule first expressed in Barassi : “[Ajppellate courts should dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction while [a time-extending] motion was still pending in the trial court.” ¶38 , (citing Barassi, 130 Ariz. at 422 , 636 P.2d at 1204 ).