Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Boehringer, 141 P. 126.

34 citing documents.

Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Olewin v. Nobel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(stating that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is not a final determination on the merits but that an appeal may be pursued “under [the 1913 Civil Code], when such order in effect determines the action and prevents final judgment from which an appeal might be taken”).2 ¶17 That excep
Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (acknowledging that dismissal without prejudice “is not a final judgment because the plaintiff can refile the action”).
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
141 P. 126 (1914), where it appears the statute of limitations for the cause of action has expired, a dismissal without prejudice may be appealable pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
where it appears the statute of limitations for the cause of action has expired, a dismissal without prejudice may be appealable pursuant to A.R.S.
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Union Interchange, (“A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the merits of the plaintiff’s cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause of action.”); 141 P. 126, 127 (1914) (“An order of dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination of the controversy on its merits, and is no bar to the prosecution of another suit timely commenced, founded upon the same cause of action.”).
Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Viewed in its entirety, Judge Gaines’ order dismissing the action without prejudice and granting relief under the savings statute prevented the entry of “a final judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” , 141 P. 126, 127 (1914) (“An order of dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination of the controversy on its merits, and is no bar to the prosecution of another suit timely commenced, founded upon the same cause of action.
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Center v. SCF Arizona 239 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Center v. SCF Arizona 239 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
141 P. 126, 127 (1914)) (holding that a “dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination of the controversy on its merits, and is no bar to the prosecution of another suit timely commenced ...
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
141 P. 126, 127 (1914) (holding that a dismissal without prejudice was appealable under this subsection when the order of dismissal “in effect determines the action and prevents final judgment .
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation v. Lincoln Foundation, Inc. 91 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
§ 12-2101(D) (2003); -52 , 141 P. 126, 127 (1914); Flynn v. Johnson, 3 Ariz.App.
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
141 P. 126, 130 (1914) (Franklin, C.J., dissenting).
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Crouch v. City of Tucson 699 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Crouch v. City of Tucson 699 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
141 P. 126 (1914), wherein the court stated: Such right is granted a party by the statute.
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-51 , 141 P. 126, 127 (1914); A.R.S.
Skinner v. City of Phoenix 95 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1939
Skinner v. City of Phoenix 95 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1939
State Ex Rel. SULLIVAN v. Moore 64 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1937
State Ex Rel. SULLIVAN v. Moore 64 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1937
In the case of *58 , 141 Pac.