Edwards v. Young
Decision Date | 24 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 10260--PR,10260--PR |
Citation | 107 Ariz. 283,486 P.2d 181 |
Parties | Isabelle EDWARDS and Mason Edwards, her husband, Appellants, v. Edwin B. YOUNG and Edwin F. Young, Appellees. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
J. William Moore, Phoenix, for appellants.
Johnson & Tucker, Phoenix, for appellees.
Appellants Isabelle and Mason Edwards instituted suit against Edwin B. Young, a minor, and Edwin F. Young, his father, for injuries suffered by Isabelle as a result of an automobile accident allegedly caused by the tortious conduct of the minor, Edwin B. Young. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the Youngs, and after a motion for a new trial was denied, this appeal followed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and we accepted review to consider the question raised.
The problem centers around the proper interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. Rule 59(d) thereof requires that a motion for a new trial shall be filed not later than ten days after entry of judgment. Rule 73(b) requires that notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days from the judgment, but that the time for appeal is extended by a 'timely' motion for a new trial. In that event, the sixty days runs from the entry of an order denying a motion for a new trial.
This sequence of events occurred:
April 17, 1969 Judgment entered for appellees.
April 22, 1969 Appellant's attorney received actual notice that judgment had been entered.
May 2, 1969 Motion for a new trial served and filed.
June 3, 1969 Order entered denying a motion for a new trial.
Notice of appeal was filed on August 4, 1969, within sixty days of June 3rd, but not within sixty days of entry of judgment.
Appellant's counsel states that he was not in court on the 17th of April, the day judgment was rendered, and he did not learn of the judgment until five days later. He immediately called opposing counsel and the two agreed that appellant should then have the full ten days contemplated in Rule 59(d) in which to serve a motion for a new trial. The trial court accepted the motion as timely, and ruled on the merits. Appellant then filed his notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals refused to entertain the appeal on the merits, stating that it lacked jurisdiction because the motion for a new trial had not been 'timely.'
The instant case is one of first impression in Arizona. Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we given great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules. Jenney v. Arizona Exp., Inc., 89 Ariz. 343, 362 P.2d 664; Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 80 Ariz. 368, 298 P.2d 789.
Appellant relies on federal interpretations, Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384, 84 S.Ct. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404, and Pierre v. Jordan, 333 F.2d 951 (9th Cir.), 8 F.R.2d 73a. 63, Case 1. Both concerned a lack of 'timeliness' under Rule 59 and the subsequent appeals under Rule 73. Both appeals were allowed because of the 'unique circumstances' existing. In Thompson, the petitioner relied on a statement of the district court that the motion was made 'in ample time' and in Pierre, appellant was a layman acting In propria persona, whose ignorance of the federal rules was felt excesable.
Nenetheless, we do not think the appeal was timely. It is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal. Patterson v. Patterson, 102 Ariz. 410 at 415, 432 P.2d 143; Murphey v. Gray, 84 Ariz. 299 at 307, 327 P.2d 751; Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, supra, 80 Ariz. at 370, 298 P.2d 789; In re Gipson's Estate, 64 Ariz. 181 at 183, 167 P.2d 383; Burney v. Lee, 59 Ariz. 360, 129 P.2d 308.
There are, of course, two additional facts which were not present in the foregoing cases; first, the understanding of opposing counsel that appellant would have a full ten days after he received notice of the judgment within which to file the motion for a new trial, and that the trial court ruled upon the motion for a new trial. The majority in Thompson recognized the 'obvious great hardship to a party.' The four dissenting judges stated,
Rule 6(b) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houghton v. County Com'rs of Kent County
...and causing confusion among the lower courts and the bar.' Id. 375 U.S. at 390, 84 S.Ct. at 400." Similarly, in Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 486 P.2d 181, 183 (1971), the Supreme Court of Arizona rejected the doctrine, also quoting the dissent in Thompson, and "Although this holding may......
-
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.
...jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.'" James, 215 Ariz. 182, ¶ 11, 158 P.3d at 908, quoting Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (1971). ValueOptions argues, however, that we should treat Haroutunian's motion to reconsider the trial court's denial of a......
-
Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure were substantially adopted, Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (1971) (en banc), have received more extensive consideration over the years. The Arizona courts "give great weight" to federal int......
-
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Ins. Agency, Inc.
...similar to Rule 12 of the federal rules, we may "give great weight to the federal interpretations of" that rule. Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (1971). ¶ 9 Cullen asserted at oral argument in this court that the above rule is a "minority" rule and we should not adop......
-
Rational pleading in the modern world of civil litigation: the lessons and public policy benefits of Twombly and Iqbal.
...of rules of civil procedure already adopted for the federal courts and by many states." (citations omitted)); see also Edwards v. Young, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (Ariz. 1971) (according "great weight" to the federal interpretations of the Federal Rules); Oakley & Coon, supra note 5, at 1378-42......
-
§ 3.4 Taking An Appeal.
...to untimely notice of judgment). Timely filing the notice of appeal is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (1971); Wilkinson v. Fabry, 177 Ariz. 506, 507, 869 P.2d 182, 183 (App. 1992). An appellant’s failure to appeal timely......
-
§ 3.4 Taking An Appeal.
...to untimely notice of judgment). Timely filing the notice of appeal is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, 486 P.2d 181, 182 (1971); Wilkinson v. Fabry, 177 Ariz. 506, 507, 869 P.2d 182, 183 (App. 1992). An appellant’s failure to appeal timely......