Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Craig v. Craig, 253 P.3d 624.

76 citing documents.

Lopez v. Food City 322 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lopez v. Food City 322 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(notice of appeal filed in the absence of a final judgment is a nullity).
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).
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(noting significant changes to procedural rules should occur by rule-making rather than decision).
In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re the Marriage of Kassa 299 P.3d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
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).
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶¶ 17, 21-22, 870 (2011) (usual ordinary meaning of rule must be applied unless doing so would create absurd result; policy implications of rule best addressed through supreme court’s rulemaking process); (change to rules of procedure “should occur through rulemaking,” not judicial opinion).
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
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 t
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
is ‘ineffective’ and a nullity.” ¶ 13 , (citation omitted).
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 judgment rule and characterizing it as a “limited” or “slim” exception).
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“a notice of appeal filed in the absence of a final judgment .
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
P.2d 1200 (1981), our supreme court announced a limited exception to 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