DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tarnoff v. Jones, 497 P.2d 60.

26 citing documents.

  • McFarlane v. McFarlane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • McFarlane v. McFarlane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution “requires all states to give to a sister state’s judgment the [r]es judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the rendering state.” –44 (1972) (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1963)).
  • B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • In Re: William Reece Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • In Re: William Reece Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶7 A court’s power to render a valid judgment is limited by the nature of the proceeding and the issues raised in the pleadings: “If the court’s judgment exceeds those limits it is void.” (finding that a judgment was void where no pleading was filed that placed an affirmative claim for recovery at issue); (“[I]t is fundamentally unfair 3 IN RE: WILLIAM REECE Decision of the Court to give greater or different relief in a judgment from that which .
  • Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    If he opts for the latter course, the defendant knows that greater relief than that prayed for or relief different in kind will not be entered against him.” see also Darnell, 137 Ariz. at 206.
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “As a general proposition, a default judgment is void if it is ‘outside the cause of action stated in the complaint and if the defendant was not given a fair opportunity to defend against the claim on which the judgment was based.’” , (quoting Restatement of Judgments § 8(c) (1942)); , (adopting the Tamcff test to determine whether a default judgment based on a technically deficient complaint is void).
  • Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ‘All that is required is that the complaint state a plan [sic] and concise statement of the cause of action and that the defendant is given fair notice of the allegations as a whole.”
  • Giehrl v. Royal Aloha Vacation Club, Inc. 937 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Giehrl v. Royal Aloha Vacation Club, Inc. 937 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 697 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 697 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Schmidt v. American Leasco 679 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Parks v. Rawson 657 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Parks v. Rawson 657 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    n One of this court has stated: “In Arizona, however, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor full faith and credit flowing from recognition of a judgment by a sister state is available to bar the court which originally issued the judgment from subsequently modifying or reversing that judgment in accordance with the established laws and procedure of that original jurisdiction.”
  • Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
  • Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
    : In order to support a default judgment, a complaint need not be technically sufficient, but must contain a plain and concise statement of the cause of action and give defendants fair notice of the allegations as a whole.
  • Krasse v. Del E. Webb Development Corporation 549 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Krasse v. Del E. Webb Development Corporation 549 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    which discusses the pertinent part of Rule 54(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., involved in the order of Department A. 2 .