Cited by

Law P. 78(c); Madrid, 236 Ariz. at 224, ¶ 6; ¶ 15 (1999) (A judgment that fails to include Rule 54(b) language becomes final and appealable upon entry of the judgment disposing of the last pending claim.).

¶ 14 (1999) (finding no prejudice where the notice of appeal omitted certain defendant names but all defendants “received the notice and .

the notice of appeal should be construed as sufficient[,]” ¶ 10 (1999).

–73, ¶ 10 (1999) (explaining a defective notice of appeal does not deprive this court of jurisdiction and is generally sufficient if it is not misleading or prejudicial to the appellee).

ing.” Arizona courts disfavor technical challenges to a notice of appeal, and the “notice of appeal should be construed as sufficient” if “the record discloses an appellant’s intent to appeal from a judgment,” the “notice of appeal substantially complies with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure,” and “the defect has neither misled nor prejudiced an opposing party.” -73, ¶ 10 (1999).

-73, ¶¶ 8-10 (1999) (noting technical defects in a notice of appeal are generally not jurisdictional); -10 (1967) (holding that notices of appeal should be liberally construed "if the result is neither misleading nor prejudicial").

Moreover, “where adequate notice has been given an opposing party, fairness demands that no mere technical error should prevent the appellate court from reaching the merits of the appeal.” ¶ 10 (1999) ().

-73, ¶¶ 8-10 (1999) (noting technical defects in a notice of appeal are generally not jurisdictional); (holding that notices of appeal should be liberally constructed "if the result is neither misleading nor prejudicial").

“Arizona courts recognize that an overriding purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to dispose of cases on the merits where errors in procedure can be characterized as harmless and non-prejudicial.” ¶ 10, ¶ 16

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2102(A); ¶ 16, (“prior judgments which adjudicate some but not all claims in a given suit .

Although entry of judgment makes a prior, partial judgment that lacked Rule 54(b) language final, –74, ¶¶ 15–16, –04 (1999), Rule 60(c) relief is confined to review of orders that are “independently” final.

See ARCAP 8(c) & (e) (setting forth content and form required in notices of appeal); ¶ 7, (holding notice of appeal is sufficient if it conveyed adequate notice to and did not prejudice the opposing party).

Although an appellant who fails to follow the rules of appellate procedure risks losing the right to judicial review on the merits, imposing such a sanction on a timely filed appeal “should generally result upon a showing of prejudice to an adverse party.” ¶ 18

ere the record discloses an appellant’s intent to appeal from a judgment, such as sending copies of a defective notice of appeal to all defendants, or where a notice of appeal substantially complies with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal should be construed as sufficient so long as the defect has neither misled nor prejudiced an opposing party.” -73, ¶ 10, -03 (1999) (-10, -99 (1967) (“[W]e believe that distinction is not material, and that the better rule is that if a

ould strive to resolve an appeal on the merits; (2) an appellant who fails to follow appellate procedure does so at the risk of losing his right to judicial review on the merits; (3) such sanction should generally result upon a showing of prejudice to an adverse party; and (4) absent such prejudice, society’s interests in adjudicating appeals on the merits should govern.” ¶ 18

-73, ¶ 10, -03 (1999) (holding a defective notice of appeal should be construed as sufficient so long as the defect has neither misled nor prejudiced an opposing party); McKillip v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., (stating court reviews notices of appeal

(specifying test for determining sufficiency of notice of appeal); (observing notices of appeal liberally construed whenever possible).

¶ 16 , (holding that “without the 54(b) certification, prior judgments which adjudicate some but not all claims ..., or which determine the rights and liabilities of some but not all parties, become final upon entry of the judgment entered last in time”); see also Nat’l. Broker Assocs.

¶ 16 , (prior judgment lacking Rule 54(b) language that adjudicates some but not all claims becomes final upon entry of subsequent judgment that terminates all remaining claims).

¶ 10 , (if opposing party has received adequate notice, mere technical error should not bar appellate court from reaching merits).

But we are not faced here with a timely filed or premature notice of appeal that is allegedly deficient or defective, in which case, “fairness demands that ‘no mere technical error should prevent the appellate court from reaching the merits of the appeal.’” (absent prejudice to appellee, “technical defects or omissions in a notice of appeal are usually not jurisdictional”); McKillip v. Smitty’s S