City of Phoenix v. Geyler
In City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 328, 697 P.2d 1073, 1078 (1985), the moving party received the final order but relied on the partially illegible date stamp instead of on the date typed on the order. 144 Ariz. at 331, 697 P.2d at 1081.
The stamped date, however, was not the date the order had been filed but the date it had been mailed. Id. at 330, 697 P.2d at 1080.
Thus, the supreme court noted that "defense counsel and his secretary had overlooked the typed date line . . . or misunderstood the form." Id. at 327, 697 P.2d at 1077.
The court stated defense counsel "had no doubt as to the date on which the judgment was entered" and suggested that, had counsel had such doubts, his failure to seek clarification of the date would have been inexcusable. Id. at 331, 697 P.2d at 1081.
Thus, although the supreme court stated the facts of the case "strongly suggested" relief was warranted, id. at 332, 697 P.2d at 1082.