Arizona State Liquor Bd. v. Slonsky, 9882
| Decision Date | 04 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 9882,9882 |
| Citation | 470 P.2d 106,106 Ariz. 25 |
| Parties | ARIZONA STATE LIQUOR BOARD, a body politic of the State of Arizona, Appellant, v. Carl J. SLONSKY, dba Lil's Big Shot, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by T. M. Pierce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phonix, for appellant.
Kanne & Bickart, by Allen B. Bickart, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Arizona State Liquor Board, defendant below, from a superior court judgment ordering the defendant Liquor Board to grant plaintiff Carl J. Slonsky's application for transfer of his beer and wine liquor license. The superior court's judgment overruled a previous Liquor Board decision which had denied Slonsky's application for transfer. On April 23, 1968, the superior court entered a formal order and judgment which granted plaintiff Slonsky's application to transfer his liquor license. The Liquor Board filed a motion to vacate the judgment on April 30, 1968, and the motion was summarily denied by a minute entry order on May 3, 1968. On June 28, 1968, the defendant Liquor Board filed a notice of appeal, after which opposing briefs were filed. A formal denial of defendant's motion to vacate judgment was not entered until June 18, 1969, and seven days later defendant filed a notice of appeal both from the superior court's judgment of April 23, 1968, and the order of June 18, 1969, denying defendant's motion to vacate judgment.
Plaintiff contends that the defendant Liquor Board failed to properly perfect its appeal. He asserts that since defendant's notice of appeal of June 28, 1968, appealed only the superior court's judgment of April 23, 1968,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. State
...Court cases, which the parties do not address,5 compel us to find that we lack jurisdiction here. In Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 25, 470 P.2d 106, 106 (1970), the court dismissed the appeal, stating very succinctly: [Former] Rule 73(b) ... enumerates the motions whi......
-
Balcomb's Estate, Matter of
...to Compel Conveyance was a new trial motion. We have concluded that it was not. We believe that the cases of Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 470 P.2d 106 (1970); and Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company, 23 Ariz.App. 549, 534 P.2d 763, review denied (1975), compel......
-
Quine v. Godwin
...listed in Rule 9(b) would not serve to extend the appeal period regardless of the contents of the motion. Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 470 P.2d 106 (1970). The Supreme Court later carved out an exception to the Slonsky rule in Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., 117 Ariz. 41......
-
Demos v. Olson
...neither a motion for reconsideration nor a motion to vacate judgment acts as a time-extending motion. See Ariz. State Liquor Bd. v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 25, 470 P.2d 106, 106 (1970) (interpreting former Rule 73(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P.), clarified and overruled in part by Hegel v. O'Malley In......
-
§ 3.4.1.2.2 Motion Must Refer To Correct Rule To Extend Time.
...new trial may be directed against summary judgment and denial of such motion extends time to appeal); Ariz. State Liquor Bd. v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 470 P.2d 106 (1970) (motion not specifically so labeled did not extend appeal time); Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons, 117 Ariz. 202, 204, 571......
-
§ 3.4.1.2.2 Motion Must Refer To Correct Rule To Extend Time.
...new trial may be directed against summary judgment and denial of such motion extends time to appeal); Ariz. State Liquor Bd. v. Slonsky, 106 Ariz. 25, 470 P.2d 106 (1970) (motion not specifically so labeled did not extend appeal time); Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons, 117 Ariz. 202, 204, 571......