Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re Heinzl, 818 P.2d 146.

14 citing documents.

Muse v. Goodson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Club West v. Shea homes/the Edge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Corp., (if a Rule 59 motion is not timely, the court lacks jurisdiction to address it).
Custom Accounting v. Sal E. Mander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lehman v. Washburn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Howitt v. Wrinkle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Corp., (interpreting Ariz. R. Civ.
Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich Ariz. 2017
Alvarado v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Corp., (court lacks jurisdiction over untimely motion filed under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 59(l)).
Mead v. Theut Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Corp., -66, -51 (App. 1990) (appellant’s request for judgment nunc pro tunc five months after superior court entered judgment ineffective to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(l)).
Risser v. Pinewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Southwest Gas Corporation Taylor v. Grubb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶11 -67, -52 (App. 1990), this court addressed the question whether the trial court retained jurisdiction when judgment had been entered on some but not all of the claims alleged in a multi-count complaint and counterclaim.
Minjares v. State 219 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Matter of Hansen 877 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Hansen 877 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1994
In , the respondent filed a motion to withdraw which stated that his client would be prepared for a medical liability review panel hearing scheduled for the following month, despite the fact that he knew that his client had not obtained an expert witness to testify on her behalf.
S.K. Drywall, Inc. v. Developers Financial Group, Inc. 819 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1991
Corp., -169 , -154 (Ct.App.1990); see also Union Rock & -72 , -57 (Ct.App.1983).