City of Tucson v. Wondergem
| Decision Date | 02 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV |
| Citation | 4 Ariz.App. 291,419 P.2d 552 |
| Parties | The CITY OF TUCSON, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Jennie WONDERGEM, surviving spouse of Peter Wondergem, deceased, Appellee. 2308. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Gordon S. Kipps, City Atty., Tucson, by Jay M. Abbey, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.
Rees, Estes & Browning, by William D. Browning, Tucson, for appellee.
An appeal was taken to this court by the City of Tucson from a minute entry order of superior court, Pima County, granting a new trial to the appellee and vacating the judgment theretofore entered. On September 9, 1966, we dismissed this appeal on our own motion for the reason that the order appealed from was not an appealable order, hence we were without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Arizona Corporation Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., 83 Ariz. 135, 137, 317 P.2d 562 (1957).
It is well settled under our Rules of Civil Procedure that a judgment or order from which an appeal is allowed, to be effective for purposes of appeal, must be in writing and signed by a judge. State v Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 112, 392 P.2d 775 (1964); Blackman v. Associates Loan Co., 1 Ariz.App. 11, 12, 398 P.2d 919 (1965).
Appellant, subsequent to our dismissal of its appeal, procured a formal signed order on September 26, 1966, which conformed to the requirements of Rule 58(a), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. Thereafter on September 28, 1966, a joint motion was filed by appellant and appellee, requesting this court to reinstate the dismissed appeal. We are denying the motion, and in order to clarify the problem, we deem it of sufficient importance to warrant a written opinion.
An appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and bond for costs on appeal within sixty days from Entry of the judgment or order appealed from, with certain exceptions not pertinent here. Rule 73(b), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. We are cognizant of the fact that appellate courts have permitted entry of judgments nunc pro tunc to validate a premature appeal. See 6 Moore, Federal Practice §§ 54.41 and 58.08(2d ed.). However, the Supreme Court of Arizona has heretofore indicated in Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42, 45, 365 P.2d 208 (1961), the procedure we will follow in this jurisdiction.
Dismissal of an appeal terminates the proceedings in this court, leaving the matter still pending before the lower court for entry of final judgment. When this final step in the proceedings below is accomplished, and a timely appeal is thereafter taken, if the parties consent to such a course, the second appeal may be heard on the record and briefs prepared for the first appeal, supplemented by the final judgment. Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc., supra.
The time for perfecting an appeal commences to run in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.
...relief are timely. See DNB Constr., Inc. v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 61, 62, 607 P.2d 380, 381 (1980); City of Tucson v. Wondergem, 4 Ariz.App. 291, 292, 419 P.2d 552, 553 (1966). ¶ 8 Rule 58(e), Ariz. R. Civ. P., requires the trial court clerk to distribute to all parties, "[i]mmediately ......
-
Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
...dismissed. However, as this Court has indicated previously in Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State, supra, and City of Tucson v. Wondergem, 4 Ariz.App. 291, 419 P.2d 552, 553 (1966), if the parties timely perfect an appeal from a final judgment, and so stipulate, we will consider the briefs an......
-
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin, 14683
...of judgment and the entry of judgment is important since the entry starts the time for appeal running, City of Tucson v. Wondergem, 4 Ariz.App. 291, 419 P.2d 552 (1966), and allows execution. Lamb v. Superior Court, etc., 127 Ariz. 400, 521 P.2d 906 (1980). The difference is also important ......
-
Barassi v. Matison
...Association, 6 Ariz.App. 511, 433 P.2d 1003 (1967); Zoellner v. Zoellner, 4 Ariz.App. 561, 422 P.2d 392 (1967); City of Tucson v. Wondergem, 4 Ariz.App. 291, 419 P.2d 552 (1966). Subsequent to the modification of Rule 9(a), the Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1, has continued to hold that un......