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.
9 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Phoenix v. Geylergreen2 sentences2024Williams also cites to Geyler, in which our supreme court found a mistake resulting in counsel’s untimely post-trial motion “was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion.” 144 Ariz. at 332 . ¶13 Neither case helps Williams. 2020See City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 332 (1985) (finding 3 MUNOZ v. ZEPEDA Decision of the Court excusable neglect where “the mistake . . . which led to the late filing of the motion . . . was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion”). | 2 | 8 |
Coconino Pulp and Paper Company v. Marvingreen2 sentences2019Id. ¶9 We find no abuse of discretion here and affirm the superior court’s denial of relief, but clarify the basis to eliminate any confusion. ¶10 To begin, Damon may have satisfied the threshold standard for excusable neglect because his attorney had office procedures in place to ensure timely filing, his legal assistant made “the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion,” id. at 332 , and the lawyer reasonably relied on his legal assistant, having no reason to distrust her based on past perfo 2017This test has been applied on a case-by-case basis in cases of clerical and secretarial error, and legal error where the state of the law is “muddled or confused.” Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County, 180 Ariz. 331 , 339–40 (App. 1994) (noting case-by-case application and that neglect may be excusable if due to legal error in certain cases); City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 332 (1985) (declaring a lawyer’s misreading of date on minute entry was a type of clerical error constituting excusable neglect); Coconino, 83 Ariz. at 121 (a secretary’s failure to distribute calendar sheet conta | 2 | 2 |
Daou v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2019Id. ¶9 We find no abuse of discretion here and affirm the superior court’s denial of relief, but clarify the basis to eliminate any confusion. ¶10 To begin, Damon may have satisfied the threshold standard for excusable neglect because his attorney had office procedures in place to ensure timely filing, his legal assistant made “the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and diligent fashion,” id. at 332 , and the lawyer reasonably relied on his legal assistant, having no reason to distrust her based on past perfo 2017Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340 ; Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353 , 359–60 (1984) (legal error in believing an answer is not required when an action is filed in a county other than county of residence is not excusable neglect); Maher v. Urman, 211 Ariz. 543 , 550– 51, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2005) (a failure to serve based on ignorance of Rule 4(i) is not excusable neglect); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’s, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 349 (App. 1997) (a secretary’s failure to understand timing rule is not excusable neglect, but legal error). ¶19 Biglow argues her neglect was excusable because the arbitrator stated she wou | 1 | 2 |
Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc.green1 sentence2017Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340 ; Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353 , 359–60 (1984) (legal error in believing an answer is not required when an action is filed in a county other than county of residence is not excusable neglect); Maher v. Urman, 211 Ariz. 543 , 550– 51, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2005) (a failure to serve based on ignorance of Rule 4(i) is not excusable neglect); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’s, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 349 (App. 1997) (a secretary’s failure to understand timing rule is not excusable neglect, but legal error). ¶19 Biglow argues her neglect was excusable because the arbitrator stated she wou | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almarez v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1985In Almarez v. Superior Court, 146 Ariz. 189 , 704 P.2d 830 (App.1985), this court stated: “In the context of an attorney’s action or inaction, the Arizona cases have found excusable neglect where the attorney had established and was utilizing office procedures designed to ensure a timely response, but was ‘deflected from his purpose by one of the many interruptions that beset practitioners in modern law practice,’ [citation omitted] or where ‘the mistake or neglect ... was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prom 1985In Almarez v. Superior Court, 146 Ariz. 189 , 704 P.2d 830 (App.1985), this court stated: “In the context of an attorney’s action or inaction, the Arizona cases have found excusable neglect where the attorney had established and was utilizing office procedures designed to ensure a timely response, but was ‘deflected from his purpose by one of the many interruptions that beset practitioners in modern law practice,’ [citation omitted] or where ‘the mistake or neglect ... was the type of clerical error which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prom | 2 | 1985–1993 |
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1993In the context of an attorney’s action or inaction, the Arizona cases have found excusable neglect where the attorney had established and was utilizing office procedures designed to ensure a timely response, but was “deflected from this purpose by one of the many interruptions that beset practitioners in modern law practice,” Addison v. Cienega, Ltd., 146 Ariz. 322 , 705 P.2d 1373 (2 CA-CIV 5295, filed May 9, 1985), or where “the mistake or neglect ... was the type of clerical error *164 which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and dilig 1993In the context of an attorney’s action or inaction, the Arizona cases have found excusable neglect where the attorney had established and was utilizing office procedures designed to ensure a timely response, but was “deflected from this purpose by one of the many interruptions that beset practitioners in modern law practice,” Addison v. Cienega, Ltd., 146 Ariz. 322 , 705 P.2d 1373 (2 CA-CIV 5295, filed May 9, 1985), or where “the mistake or neglect ... was the type of clerical error *164 which might be made by a reasonably prudent person who attempted to handle the matter in a prompt and dilig | 2 | 1985–1993 |
Maher v. Urman
green
1 sentence2017Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340 ; Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353 , 359–60 (1984) (legal error in believing an answer is not required when an action is filed in a county other than county of residence is not excusable neglect); Maher v. Urman, 211 Ariz. 543 , 550– 51, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2005) (a failure to serve based on ignorance of Rule 4(i) is not excusable neglect); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’s, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 349 (App. 1997) (a secretary’s failure to understand timing rule is not excusable neglect, but legal error). ¶19 Biglow argues her neglect was excusable because the arbitrator stated she wou | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County
green
2 sentences2017Ellman, 180 Ariz. at 340 ; Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353 , 359–60 (1984) (legal error in believing an answer is not required when an action is filed in a county other than county of residence is not excusable neglect); Maher v. Urman, 211 Ariz. 543 , 550– 51, ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2005) (a failure to serve based on ignorance of Rule 4(i) is not excusable neglect); Jarostchuk v. Aricol Comm’s, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 349 (App. 1997) (a secretary’s failure to understand timing rule is not excusable neglect, but legal error). ¶19 Biglow argues her neglect was excusable because the arbitrator stated she wou 2017This test has been applied on a case-by-case basis in cases of clerical and secretarial error, and legal error where the state of the law is “muddled or confused.” Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County, 180 Ariz. 331 , 339–40 (App. 1994) (noting case-by-case application and that neglect may be excusable if due to legal error in certain cases); City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 332 (1985) (declaring a lawyer’s misreading of date on minute entry was a type of clerical error constituting excusable neglect); Coconino, 83 Ariz. at 121 (a secretary’s failure to distribute calendar sheet conta | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.