Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Findlay v. Lewis, 837 P.2d 145.

53 citing documents.

State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The court “has broad discretion over the management of its docket” and we “do not substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court in the day-to-day management of cases.”
Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
611(a), and we generally do not substitute our judgment on such matters if reasonable
NIEBLAS v. BONITAS CASITAS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
NIEBLAS v. BONITAS CASITAS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Dixson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Dixson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“The effect of access to an appointed advisory counsel normally overcomes any research handicap that restrictions on access to a jail library impose on an inmate.”); (“If .
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
White v. Barreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
White v. Barreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Appellate courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the [superior] court in the day-to-day management of cases.”
Vargas v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Vargas v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
to 2012 amendment; (“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
Jimenez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jimenez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The superior court has “broad discretion over the management of its docket.”
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Rector v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(the superior court has broad discretion over the management of its docket).
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting the superior court’s “broad discretion over the management of its docket”).
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Backstrand v. Backstrand 479 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
611(a) (“[t]he court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence”); (“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(superior courts maintains broad discretion over the management of their docket).
Kazzazi v. Das Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kazzazi v. Das Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
First, we review for an abuse of discretion both the superior court’s management of its docket, as well as its rulings on the admission of evidence, ¶ 66 (2009).
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
O'Neal v. Deilman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–47, –49 (1992) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the superior court's management of its docket in determining whether to grant motion for extension of time); see also cf. Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc.
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
to 2012 amendment; , (“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
Bob H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. 237 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bob H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. 237 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
P. 6(b) (after specified period to act expires, court may extend time upon showing of excusable neglect); -47 , -49 (1992) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the superior court’s management of its docket in determining whether to grant motion for extension of time).
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Marvin Johnson, 184 Ariz. at 102 , 907 P.2d at 71 (“[U]nder Rule 42(b), Ariz.R.Civ.P., a court may order separate trials for claims within a case in order to further the convenience of the parties or to avoid prejudice.”); , (“A trial court has broad discretion over the management of its docket.
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by