DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Panzino v. City of Phoenix, 999 P.2d 198.

67 citing documents.

  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Co. v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross, -11 , -7 (App.1991), ¶ 7
  • Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    (quoting Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir.1983); , ); ¶ 19 , (recognizing the strong public policy favoring the finality of judgments); , (noting that the six-month limit of Rule 60(c)(i)-(3) "was designed to ensure the finality of judgments”).
  • Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    However, “[ujnder general rules of agency, which apply to the attorney-client relationship, ‘[t]he neglect of the attorney is equivalent to the neglect of the client himself when the attorney is acting within the scope of his authority.’ ” , (quoting Balmer v. Gagnon, 19 Ariz.App.
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    P., describing the duties of counsel, requires attorneys to “keep[] advised of the status of cases in which [they have] appeared.” (“‘[T]he client is charged with the actions and omissions of its attorney.’”), quoting Mission Ins.
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    rt to vacate a judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” It may be applied when relief is not available under any of the other subsections to the rule, Edsall, 143 Ariz. at 243 , 693 P.2d at 898 , and “when our systemic commitment to finality of judgments is outweighed by extraordinary circumstances of hardship or injustice.” ¶ 6 , (citations and internal quotations omitted).
  • Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
  • Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
  • State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Co. v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross, -11 , -7 (App.1991), disapproved on other grounds