chance rule in Arizona

2015See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. 375, 381 , 868 P.2d 958, 964 (App. 1993) (providing that when a party files a notice of appeal before the trial court had a chance to rule on the motion for reconsideration, the court is divested of jurisdiction); Southwest Gas, 229 Ariz. at 201 ¶ 8, 273 P.3d at 653 .

2015See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. 375, 381 , 868 P.2d 958, 964 (App. 1993) (providing that when a party files a notice of appeal before the trial court had a chance to rule on the motion for reconsideration, the court is divested of jurisdiction); Southwest Gas, 229 Ariz. at 201 ¶ 8, 273 P.3d at 653 .

1979It is squarely at this point that plaintiff makes a formidable assertion, namely that he has a right to have his say before he is fired, particularly since in this situation the ‘issues of credibility and veracity * * * play a significant role in the decision reached.’ (citation omitted) “We thus balance the chance of error, mistake, or bias, resulting in the disastrous termination of employment, against the expense, the delay, and the administrative burden of trial with counsel, testimonial presentations, and the right of cross-examination.” Kennedy v. Robb, 547 F.2d 408, 414-15 (8th Cir. 197

1979It is squarely at this point that plaintiff makes a formidable assertion, namely that he has a right to have his say before he is fired, particularly since in this situation the `issues of credibility and veracity * * * play a significant role in the decision reached.' (citation omitted) "We thus balance the chance of error, mistake, or bias, resulting in the disastrous termination of employment, against the expense, the delay, and the administrative burden of trial with counsel, testimonial presentations, and the right of cross-examination." Kennedy v. Robb, 547 F.2d 408, 414-15 (8th Cir.1976

2026Co., 132 Ariz. 546, 549 (1982) (as it relates to summary judgment, a court must have a chance to rule on a particular issue raised before it is asserted on appeal).

2019Though Husband argues that Wife prematurely filed her request for a status conference and that the court was not required to hold a conference, due process requires the court, when factual disputes exist, to “afford the parties an opportunity to present sworn oral testimony, and [ ] not rely solely on avowals of counsel.” Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 464, ¶ 1 (App. 2014). ¶13 The superior court should have awarded Wife the chance to have a hearing on contested issues.