Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kadota v. Hosogai, 608 P.2d 68.

37 citing documents.

Pickett v. Borg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Pickett v. Borg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[T]his Court is not required to undertake the burden of researching and determining foreign law without any assistance from the attorneys.”).
Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 44.1, and may conduct our “own independent research and analysis” to determine the answer to the relevant question, –37 (App. 1980).
Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Likewise, , we rejected an argument that a defendant waived personal jurisdiction by seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem to defend a lawsuit.
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Consequently, a judgment would be void and subject to attack if the court that rendered it was without jurisdiction because of lack of proper service.” Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., , (citations omitted); , (“[T]he law is clear that a judgment is void if the trial court did not have jurisdiction because of a lack of proper service.”).
Cardona v. Kreamer 235 P.3d 1026 Ariz. 2010
Cardona v. Kreamer 235 P.3d 1026 Ariz. 2010
Compliance with the Convention, as acceded to by Mexico, is “mandatory in all cases to which it applies.” Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 699, 705 (“By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, the Convention pre-empts inconsistent methods of service prescribed by state law.”); (“Arizona cannot attempt to exercise jurisdiction under a rule promulgated by its courts if that rule would 10 violate an international treaty.”).
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Kadota v. Hosogai -34 , -71 (App.1980) (party attempting service has burden of establishing proper service when challenged).
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (“Proper service of process is essential for the court to have jurisdiction over the defendant.”); (“[T]he law is clear that a judgment is void if the trial court did not have jurisdiction because of a lack of proper service.”).
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
This court “can arrive at a resolution of the foreign law question on the basis of its own independent research and analysis.”
Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court 831 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court 831 P.2d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5860 818 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5860 818 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Janson v. Christensen 808 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1991
Janson v. Christensen 808 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1991
Dixon v. Picopa Construction Co. 755 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Bowen v. Graham 684 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bowen v. Graham 684 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
this holding was amplified.
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
On appeal, however, , this court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellee because service of process was invalid and, accordingly, reversed and remanded with directions that appellant’s motion to dismiss be granted.
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
: The adoption of Rule 12, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, established that the distinction between general appearances and special appearances was to be abolished.
Hosogai v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 611 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hosogai v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 611 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by