Eaton Fruit Co. v. California Spray-Chemical Corp., SPRAY-CHEMICAL
| Decision Date | 13 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 8557,SPRAY-CHEMICAL,8557 |
| Parties | EATON FRUIT COMPANY, Shannon Tomlinson and Dick Eaton, dba Eaton Cattle Company, Appellants, v. CALIFORNIACORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask, Phoenix, for appellants.
Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Phoenix, for appellee.
Appellee, California Spray-Chemical Corporation, on February 17, 1967, moved this Court for an order dismissing this appeal based on these facts; viz., on April 6, 1964, a written judgment was signed and filed in the trial court; on the same day, a motion for new trial was filed; thereafter, on April 13, 1964, the court below took the motion for new trial under advisement and, on May 18th, by minute entry order, denied appellant's motion for new trial; thereafter, on July 9, 1964, more than sixty days after the entry of the written judgment but less than sixty days after the minute entry order denying the motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was filed.
The minute entry order denying a motion for new trial is not an appealable order because it was not signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of the court, State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 392 P.2d 775, and the notice of appeal from the minute entry order was ineffective to confer jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. Appellant, however, suggests that the appeal be not dismissed but suspended pending correction of the record in the court below.
It is therefore ordered that this appeal be suspended pending application by appellant in the superior court for a formal written order denying its motion for a new trial. The superior court is authorized to enter a formal written order as an order in furtherance of the appeal, and when entered, the clerk of the superior court is directed to supplement the record by transmittal thereof to the clerk of the Supreme Court in accordance with the prevailing rules governing appeals.
It is further ordered that upon receipt by the clerk of the Supreme Court of the formal written order, the appeal will be considered as reinstated without further action by this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowling v. Stapley
...139 P.3d 609, 610 n. 3 (2006); Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418, 420, 636 P.2d 1200, 1202 (1981); Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp., 102 Ariz. 129, 130, 426 P.2d 397, 398 (1967); Kenyon, 5 Ariz.App. at 269 n. 2, 425 P.2d at 580 n. 2. See also 1 ARIZONA APPELLATE HANDBOOK, § 3.4.1.2......
-
Stafford v. Burns
...a signed, final order corresponding to the minute entry denying the motion for new trial, see Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp., 102 Ariz. 129, 130, 426 P.2d 397, 398 (1967), no such order has been issued. Accordingly, we lack appellate jurisdiction over this appeal. ¶ 11 Although w......
-
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr.
...minute entry on May 28, 2009. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) (2003). 5 See Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp., 102 Ariz. 129, 130, 426 P.2d 397, 398 (1967).ANALYSIS ¶ 8 On appeal, Simon argues that the superior court erred in determining that the Police Departme......
-
Engel v. Landman
...to obtain a written, signed order corresponding to the minute entry order of November 23, 2007. See Eaton Fruit Co. v. Calif. Spray-Chemical Co., 102 Ariz. 129, 426 P.2d 397 (1967). However, we must first address whether the November order was substantively ¶ 19 An appealable post-judgment ......