Case Name: COMMERCE REALTY CO., a sole proprietorship, of George L. Graziadio, in his sole and separate right, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Maria MASTICK, aka Maria Matejchick, a widowed woman; Louis L. Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right; and Simon Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right, Defendants/Appellees
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1984-03-08
Citations: 139 Ariz. 433
Docket Number: No. 17385-PR
Parties: COMMERCE REALTY CO., a sole proprietorship, of George L. Graziadio, in his sole and separate right, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Maria MASTICK, aka Maria Matejchick, a widowed woman; Louis L. Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right; and Simon Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right, Defendants/Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
679 P.2d 79
COMMERCE REALTY CO., a sole proprietorship, of George L. Graziadio, in his sole and separate right, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Maria MASTICK, aka Maria Matejchick, a widowed woman; Louis L. Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right; and Simon Mastick, a married man in his sole and separate right, Defendants/Appellees.
No. 17385-PR.
Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.
March 8, 1984.
Hecker, Phillips & Hooker by Robert J. Hooker, Tucson, for plaintiff-appellant.
James F. Haythornewhite, Nogales, for defendants-appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of an order made by the court of appeals. The order dismissed an. appeal from Superior Court because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The Petition for Review filed in this court does not comply in any manner with our present rules. See Rule 23, ARCAP, 17A A.R.S. We granted review under the circumstances described and for the purposes explained in Evans v. Arthur, 139 Ariz. 362, 678 P.2d 943.
The judgment is affirmed, the order of the court of appeals is approved. Counsel for Respondent may apply to the court of appeals for allowance of fees in that court pursuant to the rule of Evans v. Arthur, supra.