Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bates v. Bates, 400 P.2d 593.

30 citing documents.

Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
at 177–78, ¶¶ 14, 15 ().
Swanson v. Swanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Swanson v. Swanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-77, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) () (alterations in original).
Montes v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Montes v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scott v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nothing wife did constituted an intentional act or conduct preventing husband from having a “fair submission of the controversy.”
Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Imh v. Maniatis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Extrinsic fraud includes “deception practiced by the successful party in purposely keeping his opponent in ignorance.”
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See, (noting equitable relief from a dissolution decree may be justified by conduct that “has prevented a fair submission of the controversy”).
Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
176-77 ¶ 14, (citations omitted); , (noting fraud upon the court, also referred to as extrinsic or collateral fraud, “justifying equitable relief against a judgment or decree, means some intentional act or conduct by which the prevailing party has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission of the controvers
McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McNeil v. Hoskyns 337 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
[that] has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission of the controversy,"
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Flores v. Martinez 289 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(to enter valid order, court must have jurisdiction); (without signed written order, notice of appeal ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 52 The presence of extrinsic fraud, which includes “deception practiced by the successful party in purposely keeping his opponent in ignorance,” , ( , ), may justify vacating a prior judgment.
Dressler v. Morrison 130 P.3d 978 Ariz. 2006
Dressler v. Morrison 130 P.3d 978 Ariz. 2006
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646 637 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646 637 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wine v. Wine 480 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wine v. Wine 480 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967
Veach v. City of Phoenix 427 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1967