DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

  • In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis 322 P.3d 157 Ariz. 2014
    With limited exceptions not applicable here, a notice of appeal filed before the entry of final judgment is “a nullity.” ¶ 13, see A.R.S.
  • Anna T. v. Ades, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Anna T. v. Ades, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    2 Although we generally lack jurisdiction over a premature appeal, jurisdiction is proper where the premature notice of appeal was “filed 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.” ¶ 13, (citation omitted).
  • 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