From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky

Supreme Court of Arizona
Jun 4, 1970
106 Ariz. 25 (Ariz. 1970)

Summary

interpreting former Rule 73(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Summary of this case from Demos v. Olson

Opinion

No. 9882.

June 4, 1970.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Laurens L. Henderson, J.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by T.M. Pierce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, 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, and not the court's denial of the defendant's motion to vacate judgment, the appeal did not comply with the time requirements of Ariz. Rules Civ.Proc. 73(b), 16 A.R.S. because it was filed more than sixty days from the date of entry of judgment.

Rule 73(b), supra, enumerates the motions which extend the time in which the notice of appeal may be filed beyond sixty days from the entry of judgment. A "motion to vacate judgment" is not one of the motions enumerated, hence the filing of such motion does not extend the time.

It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky

Supreme Court of Arizona
Jun 4, 1970
106 Ariz. 25 (Ariz. 1970)

interpreting former Rule 73(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Summary of this case from Demos v. Olson

In Slonsky, the court held that a particular motion did not extend the time in which a notice of appeal may be filed because it was not enumerated as a time-extending motion under the relevant rule. 106 Ariz. at 25, 470 P.2d at 106.

Summary of this case from James v. State

In Slonsky, the issue was whether a motion to vacate a judgment extended the time for filing an appeal under Rule 73(b).

Summary of this case from Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company
Case details for

Arizona State Liquor Board v. Slonsky

Case Details

Full title:ARIZONA STATE LIQUOR BOARD, a body politic of the State of Arizona…

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Jun 4, 1970

Citations

106 Ariz. 25 (Ariz. 1970)
470 P.2d 106

Citing Cases

Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company

In spite of its rather prevalent use, it is interesting to note that the Rules of Civil Procedure contain no…

James v. State

¶ 12 A series of Arizona Supreme Court cases, which the parties do not address, compel us to find that we…