Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hill v. City of Phoenix, 975 P.2d 700.

62 citing documents.

GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co. , , (“[Rule 54(b)] is designed as a compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice.”); see also Hill v. City of Phoenix , , (“The application of federal Rule 54(b) is helpful in our interpretation of the Arizona rule.
National Broker Associates, Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. 119 P.3d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
National Broker Associates, Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. 119 P.3d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 15 , (“holding that in the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification, all judgments become effective upon entry of the one last in time which disposes of the last claim”).
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-73, ¶¶ 8-10 , -03 (1999); Performance Funding, -89, ¶¶ 8, 12 , -09 (App.2000)
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Performance Funding, LLC v. Barcon Corp. 3 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 10 , (“[W]here 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.’ ” (citation omitted))
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 8 , (cautioning against construing the concept of “jurisdiction” too narrowly).
Webb v. State 977 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Webb v. State 977 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Cf. Hill v. City of Phoenix, — Ariz. -, at ¶10, at ¶ 10 (1999) (“[A]n 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.”).