Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barassi v. Matisongreen1 sentence2021See Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418, 421 (1981) (“The underlying rationale of requiring a final judgment for appealability is to avoid the constant disruption of the trial process . . . and to promote efficiency, that is, encourage the consolidation in one appeal of all error a litigant feels transpired during the trial.”). | 1 | 1 |
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLCgreen1 sentence2017See generally Brumett, 240 Ariz. at 427-28, ¶ 12 . 4 HERITAGE v. WEINBERG Decision of the Court B. | 1 | 1 |
Marianne Waldow v. James Laportagreen1 sentence2011“Failure to allow an appeal from such an order [completely resolving a petition] could compel all subsequent proceedings ... to go forward under a cloud of uncertainty.” McGathy, 226 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 15 , 246 P.3d at 631 (quoting Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646, 648 (Utah 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Christensen v. Christensengreen1 sentence2011“Failure to allow an appeal from such an order [completely resolving a petition] could compel all subsequent proceedings ... to go forward under a cloud of uncertainty.” McGathy, 226 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 15 , 246 P.3d at 631 (quoting Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646, 648 (Utah 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Montana v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina 2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina | 1 | 1 |
Mezey v. Fioramontigreen2 sentences2003First, the court believed that Cook’s holding “would undercut the basic finality requirement of [§] 12-2101(B).” 4 Mezey, 204 Ariz. at 604, ¶ 18 , 65 P.3d at 985 . 2003First, the court believed that Cook’s holding “would undercut the basic finality requirement of [§] 12-2101(B).” 4 Mezey, 204 Ariz. at 604, ¶ 18 , 65 P.3d at 985 . | 1 | 1 |
Pima County Board of Supervisors v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1994A.R.S. § 23-1061(H); Pima County Board of Supervisors v. Industrial Commission, 149 Ariz. 38, 43-44, 716 P.2d 407, 412-13 (1986). 1994A.R.S. § 23-1061(H); Pima County Board of Supervisors v. Industrial Commission, 149 Ariz. 38, 43-44, 716 P.2d 407, 412-13 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commissiongreen2 sentences1985A recognized exception to this finality rule, at least in civil cases, is the doctrine of “fraud upon the court.” As a threshold matter we see no reason not to apply this civil doctrine to criminal cases as it is a “species of fraud which constitutes an attempt to defile the court itself.” State ex rel Corbin v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 143 Ariz. 219, 226 , 693 P.2d 362, 369 (App.1984), and as such tends to corrupt judicial power and debauch the power of adjudication. 1985A recognized exception to this finality rule, at least in civil cases, is the doctrine of “fraud upon the court.” As a threshold matter we see no reason not to apply this civil doctrine to criminal cases as it is a “species of fraud which constitutes an attempt to defile the court itself.” State ex rel Corbin v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 143 Ariz. 219, 226 , 693 P.2d 362, 369 (App.1984), and as such tends to corrupt judicial power and debauch the power of adjudication. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cordova v. City of Tucson
green
2 sentences2012The court explained that “appealability under § 12-2101(G) turns not on the finality of the judgment, but on the finality of the liability decision and the trial court’s discretionary finding that an appeal should lie in the particular case” and suggested that “Rule 54(b) certification, while not necessary, would satisfy the finality requirement.” Id. ¶ 23. ¶ 17 The district agrees that § 12-2101(A)(6) confers jurisdiction and argues that Bilke has implicitly abrogated this court’s decision in Cordova, 15 Ariz.App. 469 , 489 P.2d 727 (1971), which held that orders of immediate possession are n 2012The court explained that “appealability under § 12-2101(G) turns not on the finality of the judgment, but on the finality of the liability decision and the trial court’s discretionary finding that an appeal should lie in the particular case” and suggested that “Rule 54(b) certification, while not necessary, would satisfy the finality requirement.” Id. ¶ 23. ¶ 17 The district agrees that § 12-2101(A)(6) confers jurisdiction and argues that Bilke has implicitly abrogated this court’s decision in Cordova, 15 Ariz.App. 469 , 489 P.2d 727 (1971), which held that orders of immediate possession are n | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
red
2 sentences2003Id. at 193 , 105 S.Ct. at 3120 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 142-43 . ¶ 39 Thus, although exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not required in order to bring claims under § 1983, a decision must be final in order for it to be *568 reviewable by a court in the context of a claim brought pursuant to that statute. 2003Id. at 193 , 105 S.Ct. at 3120 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 142-43 . ¶ 39 Thus, although exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not required in order to bring claims under § 1983, a decision must be final in order for it to be *568 reviewable by a court in the context of a claim brought pursuant to that statute. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
green
2 sentences2012But neither party cites or acknowledges Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, in which our supreme court followed Cordova and held that an order of immediate possession is not appealable because appellate courts lack “legislative authorization for allowing such an appeal prior to the final judgment.” 110 Ariz. at 280 , 517 P.2d at 1276 . 6 ¶ 18 Although Bilke is the more recent case, we conclude that Rogers controls. *531 The Bilke court presumably was aware of its holding in Rogers and could have overruled it, but it did not do so. 2012But neither party cites or acknowledges Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, in which our supreme court followed Cordova and held that an order of immediate possession is not appealable because appellate courts lack “legislative authorization for allowing such an appeal prior to the final judgment.” 110 Ariz. at 280 , 517 P.2d at 1276 . 6 ¶ 18 Although Bilke is the more recent case, we conclude that Rogers controls. *531 The Bilke court presumably was aware of its holding in Rogers and could have overruled it, but it did not do so. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In RE ESTATE OF McGATHY
green
1 sentence2011“Failure to allow an appeal from such an order [completely resolving a petition] could compel all subsequent proceedings ... to go forward under a cloud of uncertainty.” McGathy, 226 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 15 , 246 P.3d at 631 (quoting Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646, 648 (Utah 1982)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cromwell v. County of Sac
green
2 sentences2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina 2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nevada v. United States
green
2 sentences2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina 2006Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata provides that when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a ease, ‘it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them ... as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand____’ Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (“Under res judicata, a fina | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stainless Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bernard v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). 1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Best v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). 1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Roseberry v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). 1982Id.; Calixto v. Industrial Commission, supra. There are limited exceptions to this finality rule, such as self-contradictory notices, Bernard v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz.App. 136 , 536 P.2d 705 (1975); Best v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 221 , 482 P.2d 470 (1972); and notices contradicted by the supporting medical report, Roseberry v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 66 , 546 P.2d 802 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.