Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

Arizona Supreme Court

Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

517 P.2d 1275, 110 Ariz. 279, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 235

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1974

DocketNo. 11151

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 517 P.2d 1275 (Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District) 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

Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, 517 P.2d 1275, 110 Ariz. 279, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 235 (Ark. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant landowners Richard G. and Alice Fay Rogers, Valley National Bank, Western Farms Investment Co., and Willinger’s Turf Grass Farms, Inc., from orders of the Superior Court of Maricopa County granting the plaintiff Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District immediate possession of certain tracts of land pursuant to § 12-1116 et seq., A.R.S.

From an order of immediate possession, defendants first filed a petition for special action in this court. After an informal hearing on 21 November 1972, we declined to accept jurisdiction and suggested to the parties an appeal would be a more appropriate method of review. On 24 November 1972, the defendants filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was thereafter transferred to this court on petition of the parties pursuant to Rule 47(e)(1), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S.

We need consider only one question and that is whether the appeal itself is premature.

Early in the history of this court we held that “[an] order of immediate possession * * * [is] unquestionably not directly appealable.” De Hansen v. District Court, 11 Ariz. 379, 383, 94 P. 1125, 1126 (1908). And our Court of Appeals has stated:

“A.R.S. § 12-2101, as amended, is controlling. The subject order is neither a ‘final judgment,’ a ‘final order,’ a ‘special order made after final judgment,’ nor an ‘order affecting a substantial right’ which in effect determines the action and prevents judgment from which an appeal might be taken. Furthermore, it does not qualify as an appealable ‘interlocutory judgment’ as set forth in subsection G. Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 190, 431 P.2d 85 (1967). We hold, therefore, that this appeal is premature.” Cordova v. City of Tucson, 15 Ariz.App. 469, 470-471, 489 P.2d 727, 728-729 (1971).

Although we agree with the parties to this action that there are good reasons for allowing an appeal from an order of immediate possession, we are not persuaded at this time to overrule De Hansen and Cordova, supra, because of what we perceive to be a lack of legislative authorization for allowing such an appeal prior to the final judgment. The parties hereto may, of course, appeal after a final judgment has been entered.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant landowners Richard G. and Alice Fay Rogers, Valley National Bank, Western Farms Investment Co., and Willinger’s Turf Grass Farms, Inc., from orders of the Superior Court of Maricopa County granting the plaintiff Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District immediate possession of certain tracts of land pursuant to § 12-1116 et seq., A.R.S.

From an order of immediate possession, defendants first filed a petition for special action in this court. After an informal hearing on 21 November 1972, we declined to accept jurisdiction and suggested to the parties an appeal would be a more appropriate method of review. On 24 November 1972, the defendants filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was thereafter transferred to this court on petition of the parties pursuant to Rule 47(e)(1), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S.

We need consider only one question and that is whether the appeal itself is premature.

Early in the history of this court we held that “[an] order of immediate possession * * * [is] unquestionably not directly appealable.” De Hansen v. District Court, 11 Ariz. 379, 383, 94 P. 1125, 1126 (1908). And our Court of Appeals has stated:

“A.R.S. § 12-2101, as amended, is controlling. The subject order is neither a ‘final judgment,’ a ‘final order,’ a ‘special order made after final judgment,’ nor an ‘order affecting a substantial right’ which in effect determines the action and prevents judgment from which an appeal might be taken. Furthermore, it does not qualify as an appealable ‘interlocutory judgment’ as set forth in subsection G. Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 190, 431 P.2d 85 (1967). We hold, therefore, that this appeal is premature.” Cordova v. City of Tucson, 15 Ariz.App. 469, 470-471, 489 P.2d 727, 728-729 (1971).

Although we agree with the parties to this action that there are good reasons for allowing an appeal from an order of immediate possession, we are not persuaded at this time to overrule De Hansen and Cordova, supra, because of what we perceive to be a lack of legislative authorization for allowing such an appeal prior to the final judgment. The parties hereto may, of course, appeal after a final judgment has been entered.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 P.2d 1275, 110 Ariz. 279, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-salt-river-project-agricultural-improvement-power-district-ariz-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack