Court of Appeals of Arizona· 11/24/2006

Grand v. Nacchio

Citations

147 P.3d 763
214 Ariz. 9
495 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 12
2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS 152

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the superior court need not specifically mention Rule 54(b) if the language is clear that it intended to certify the judgment for appeal
explaining that because stocks are fungible 27 property, the court found no material difference between the shares that the plaintiff 28 originally purchased and any shares it subsequently obtained to use as substitute tender
applying a similar test for loss causation as applied by the United States Supreme Court in Dura, 544 U.S. at 344, 125 S.Ct. 1627
suggesting, in dicta, that judgment stating “[t]here is no just reason for delay” but not citing Rule 54(b) would be appeal-able
suggesting, in dicta, that a statement of “no just reason for delay” and direction to enter judgment would qualify even without direct citation to Rule 54(b)
“Generally, an order granting a voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice to its being refiled is not an appealable, final judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brammer, Eckerstrom, Espinosa

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

87 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Grand v. Nacchio

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.