Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102 (2026)

Scope of review by supreme court upon appeal from final judgment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Upon an appeal from a final judgment, the supreme court shall review any intermediate orders involving the merits of the action and necessarily affecting the judgment, and all orders and rulings assigned as error, whether a motion for a new trial was made or not.

B. If a motion for new trial was denied, the court may, on appeal from the final judgment, review the order denying the motion although no appeal is taken from the order.

C. On an appeal from a final judgment the supreme court shall not consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or judgment in an action tried before a jury unless a motion for a new trial was made.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio, 254 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio, 254 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 14× “Does § 12-2102(0 prevent Leonesio from asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support: (1) the breach of fiduciary duty claim; and (2) the punitive damage award.”
Dowling v. Stapley, 211 P.3d 1235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) (2003) (on appeal from a final judgment, a court has jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders).”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶ 22 ; see also A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) (authorizing review of "any intermediate orders involving the merits of the action and necessarily affecting the judgment").”
John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 309, 313 (1970) (rejecting claim that denial of summary-judgment motion is appealable as an intermediate order pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2102, commenting “an order denying a motion for summary judgment is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing — that the case…”
Truck Ins. Exch. v. State Comp. Fund, 673 P.2d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 15× “The Fund argues, however, that under A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) this court is granted authority to review intermediate orders and “rulings assigned as error” and as to one such intermediate order assigned as error *118 (the order denying leave to file a cross-claim) it is an aggrieved…”
Tripati v. FORWITH, 219 P.3d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “¶ 9 In its order denying Tripati’s May 17, 2007 motion, our motions panel stated: [Wjhen a minute entry denying a motion for new trial is not reduced to a written, signed order, A.R.S. § 12-2102(B) empowers this court to review the denial of a motion for new trial as part of the…”
Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2102(A)(1994). [5] To the extent that Oliver v.”
Rourk v. State, 821 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “This appeal is not limited to issues raised in the motion for new trial. Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2102(A) also provides that the appellate courts shall, in an appeal from a final judgment, “review any intermediate orders involving the merits of the action and necessarily…”
S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 977 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 3× “3 In any event, the judgments may or may not have been appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2102(B). ¶ 9 Peabody urges that Roeder holds an order compelling arbitration is interlocutory and therefore never appealable.”
Lloyd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 943 P.2d 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 12-2102(A). However, we conclude that these principles do not apply in this case, for several reasons.”
Mahar v. Acuna, II, 287 P.3d 824 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2102(A); see A.R.S. § 12-120.”
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 81 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Based on several grounds, Maraña contends the trial court erred by failing to grant that motion on Aegis’s due process and equal protection claims. Although Maraña only appealed from the judgment, we nevertheless review the trial court’s ruling on Marana’s JMOL motion.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(0) — 1 case
Rourk v. State, 821 P.2d 273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “This appeal is not limited to issues raised in the motion for new trial. Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2102(A) also provides that the appellate courts shall, in an appeal from a final judgment, “review any intermediate orders involving the merits of the action and necessarily…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(A) — 37 cases
Dowling v. Stapley, 211 P.3d 1235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “See A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) (2003) (on appeal from a final judgment, a court has jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders).”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). “¶ 22 ; see also A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) (authorizing review of "any intermediate orders involving the merits of the action and necessarily affecting the judgment").”
Truck Ins. Exch. v. State Comp. Fund, 673 P.2d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The Fund argues, however, that under A.R.S. § 12-2102(A) this court is granted authority to review intermediate orders and “rulings assigned as error” and as to one such intermediate order assigned as error *118 (the order denying leave to file a cross-claim) it is an aggrieved…”
Lloyd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 943 P.2d 729 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “See A.R.S. § 12-2102(A). However, we conclude that these principles do not apply in this case, for several reasons.”
Mahar v. Acuna, II, 287 P.3d 824 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A.R.S. § 12-2102(A); see A.R.S. § 12-120.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(A)(1994) — 1 case
Sw. Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 976 P.2d 872 (Ariz. 1999). “A.R.S. § 12-2102(A)(1994). [5] To the extent that Oliver v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(B) — 8 cases
Tripati v. FORWITH, 219 P.3d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 9 In its order denying Tripati’s May 17, 2007 motion, our motions panel stated: [Wjhen a minute entry denying a motion for new trial is not reduced to a written, signed order, A.R.S. § 12-2102(B) empowers this court to review the denial of a motion for new trial as part of the…”
S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 977 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1999). “3 In any event, the judgments may or may not have been appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2102(B). ¶ 9 Peabody urges that Roeder holds an order compelling arbitration is interlocutory and therefore never appealable.”
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc., 868 P.2d 958 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Bauer v. Crotty, 805 P.2d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
Tobel v. Travelers Ins., 988 P.2d 148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(C) — 16 cases
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio, 254 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Does § 12-2102(0 prevent Leonesio from asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support: (1) the breach of fiduciary duty claim; and (2) the punitive damage award.”
S & R Props. v. Maricopa Cnty., 875 P.2d 150 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Acuna v. Kroack, 128 P.3d 221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Richardson v. Casey, 430 P.2d 720 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
Ranburger v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 760 P.2d 547 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(D) — 1 case
S. California Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 977 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1999). “3 In any event, the judgments may or may not have been appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2102(B). ¶ 9 Peabody urges that Roeder holds an order compelling arbitration is interlocutory and therefore never appealable.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2102(c) — 1 case
Iftiger v. Weston (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.