City of Phoenix v. Geyler

697 P.2d 1073, 144 Ariz. 323, 1985 Ariz. LEXIS 185
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 19, 1985
Docket17615-PR
StatusPublished
Cited by196 cases

This text of 697 P.2d 1073 (City of Phoenix v. Geyler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 697 P.2d 1073, 144 Ariz. 323, 1985 Ariz. LEXIS 185 (Ark. 1985).

Opinions

OPINION

FELDMAN, Justice.

Defendants, Richard and Bernice Geyler, petitioned us to review a decision of the court of appeals (City of Phoenix v. Geyler, No. 1 CA-CIV 6402, filed May 22, 1984). The memorandum decision affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5, and Rule 23, Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17A A.R.S.

The issues are as follows:

1. What are the standards upon which to determine whether relief from a civil judgment should be granted in order to accord a litigant the privilege of taking a delayed appeal?

2. What is the test for determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying discretionary relief where that court has failed to indicate the grounds for its decision and where none is patent in the record?

3. What are the standards for determining whether neglect or mistake is “excusable”?

Deeming these questions of law to be important issues which require further clarification, we granted defendants’ petition for review. Rule 23(c)(4), supra.

FACTS

On August 8, 1979, the City of Phoenix filed a complaint seeking condemnation of defendants’ property. The matter was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for defendants in the amount of $1,295,507.00. The parties had stipulated that the rate of interest as well as the date of its accrual were to be decided by the court after the verdict. On October 19, 1981, a hearing was held regarding the date of accrual, the only issue on which the parties had been unable to reach an agreement. On October 21, defense counsel mailed alternate forms of judgment to the trial judge. On October 22, the trial judge signed and filed a form of judgment awarding interest from the date of judgment, thus deciding the accrual issue contrary to defendants’ contention that interest should accrue from the date of summons. Because more than two years had elapsed between issuance of the summons and the date of judgment, the difference in interest (at the stipulated rate of 12.75%) was over $350,000.00. As required by Rule 77(g), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.,1 notice of entry of judgment was mailed to counsel. The notice consisted of a minute entry order, in the form following:

[326]*326

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moore v. Dasilva
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
In Re the Estate of Susan Ruth Chalker
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
Hall v. Hardy
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
Mays v. Mwm Vicsdale
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
Rca Avionics v. Juniper
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022
Bmo v. Espiau
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2021
Murillo v. Tuckett
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Munoz v. Zepeda
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Reece v. Chu
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Presto Auto v. Nurumbi
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Laveen Meadows v. Mejia
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020
Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin
460 P.3d 273 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2020)
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
Harmon v. Gaines
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
State v. Groh
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
state/ador v. Wendtland
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
Amedovski v. Amedovski
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
Lynaugh v. Bmo
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2019
Dominguez v. National Shotcrete
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2018
Tittelbach v. Jacobs
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
697 P.2d 1073, 144 Ariz. 323, 1985 Ariz. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-phoenix-v-geyler-ariz-1985.