Cited by

–75 (1990) (discussing the history and underlying purposes of the savings statute).

§ 12-504(A); (noting criteria for discretionary savings- statute relief).

For example, Stefanie’s opening brief contains the following sentence: Furthermore in the Arizona case of P.2d 724 (Ct. App. 1990), the court held that in termination of parental rights proceedings, denying a parent’s request for a short continuance to obtain counsel may be reversible error, as it implicates due process and the right to a fair hearing.

The party requesting relief must show extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice, and also diligent, active, and vigorous prosecution of the case.

Passmore, 242 Ariz. at 291, ¶ 7

(construing prior rule); (same); –51 (1963) (even after the case has been dismissed, the court has discretion to grant relief from the order dismissing the case).

“[T]he very nature of the discretionary portion of the provision requires a case-by-case application and evaluation.”

must give way in extraordinary circumstances,” including “extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice[.]”); (applying equitable principles, a court must consider “lack of prejudice”).

Equitable tolling is appropriate when it would effectuate: 1) the policies underlying the statute, and 2) the purposes underlying the statute of limitations.”), –71 (1990); Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc., (“Equitable tolling applies when the plaintiff is excusably ignorant of the limitations period and the defendant would not be prejudiced by the late filing.”).

this fact alone does not constitute grounds for relief under Rule 60(c)(6).”

¶12 “[T]he very nature of the discretionary portion of [§ 12- 504(A)] requires a case-by-case application and evaluation.”

(“A party seeking relief under Rule 60(c)(6) must also establish .

See Roller Village, 154 Ariz. at 197, 741 P.2d at 330; (explaining statute provides both automatic and discretionary relief depending on the reason for dismissal).

There, , to conclude that lack of notice is one factor, among many, that a court should consider in ruling on a Rule 60(c) motion.