Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hackin v. First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix, 427 P.2d 360.

34 citing documents.

Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(citing Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., ).
Rodney S. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rodney S. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., Phoenix, (“We recognize that where a client wil[l]fully or negligently fails to keep in touch with an attorney so that the attorney cannot properly inform him as to the pending litigation that he cannot complain because he does not realize the date of the trial.”).
Crystal F. v. Dcs, L.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Crystal F. v. Dcs, L.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., Phx.
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., Phx., (recognizing a client “is bound by the knowledge of his attorney”) (citations omitted).
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Felix v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Hackin v. First Nat'l Bank of Ariz., Phx., (stating that a party who willfully or negligently fails to keep in touch with counsel cannot complain of the court proceeding in his absence).
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., Phx., (“We recognize that where a client wil[l]fully or negligently fails to keep in touch with an attorney so that the attorney cannot properly inform him as to the pending litigation that he cannot complain because he does not realize the date of the trial.”) (-53 (19
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (citation omitted).
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(explaining “[n]eglect is excusable when it is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances”); Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“We recognize that where a client wil[l]fully or negligently fails to keep in touch with an attorney so that the attorney cannot properly inform him as to the pending litigation that he cannot complain because he does not realize the date of the trial.”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. Mh3079411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. Mh3079411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (where client fails to keep in touch with attorney, client cannot complain because he did not know trial date).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
See Hackin v. First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix, , : Hink, “Judicial Reform in Arizona”, 6 Ariz.L.Rev.
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Flynn v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 557 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Flynn v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 557 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Ex Rel. Talley v. McAvoy 482 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Ex Rel. Talley v. McAvoy 482 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hackin v. First Nat’l Bank of *232 Arizona, Phx.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by