DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc., 625 P.2d 907.

54 citing documents.

  • McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. 2026
    P. 4.2(h); Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (recognizing that an agent authorized by law to receive service of process may include an ostensible or apparent agent).
  • Goff v. Cano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    at ¶ 18 (quoting Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ).
  • Arizona Bright v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Arizona Bright v. McDougall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Ruffino, 245 Ariz. at 168, ¶ 10; see also Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ("Proper service of process is essential for the court to have jurisdiction over the defendant.").
  • Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See, e.g., Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (“Proper service of process is essential for the court to have jurisdiction over the defendant.”).
  • Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
  • Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
    But “an insurer has the well-recognized right to raise the issue of defective service of process as to its insured,” citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., –22 (App. 1980), and “Othon’s position as to Carreon is similar.” The court determined Othon had standing to challenge the default judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient statutory pre-litigation notice and improper service of process on Carreon “because he was the owner of the property at th
  • Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Jorge Othon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
  • Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Jorge Othon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
    Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (finding insurer to have standing based on definite, substantial interest even though insurer “had previously denied coverage”).
  • James M. v. Silvia M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • James M. v. Silvia M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “Proper service of process is essential for the court to have jurisdiction over the defendant.” Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc.
  • National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Indeed, a judgment entered without jurisdiction because of a lack of proper service is void, Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (), and may be challenged via Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) at any time, “even if the party seeking relief delayed unreasonably,” (quoting Brooks v. Consol.
  • Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc. , , 321, , 910 (App. 1980) (citing Schering Corp. v. Cotlow , , ).
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Klien v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    if the court rendered it without jurisdiction due to the lack of proper service.”) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ), and is therefore presumed from the court’s order, ( ).
  • North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Corp., - 8 (App. 1990) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ).
  • Roush v. Gregory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Roush v. Gregory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc.
  • Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (citation omitted).
  • Longariello v. Aura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Longariello v. Aura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc.
  • Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 9 (App. 1998) (citing Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91-101 (1978)); (“A judgment is void and subject to direct and collateral attack if the court rendered it without jurisdiction due to lack of proper service.”) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ).
  • 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.”).
  • 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 pr
  • Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    See Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., , (“the phrase agent authorized by law to receive service of process [under former Rule 4(d)(6) ] is sufficiently broad [ ] to permit service through an ostensible agent”).
  • Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
  • GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    See Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc., 128 *
  • Reed v. Gershweir 772 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Reed v. Gershweir 772 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
  • Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Garn v. Garn 745 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    See Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
  • 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
    as more recent authority on the issue of who is a proper agent authorized to accept service of process.
  • Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
  • Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
  • Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
    Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
  • Gonzalez-Burgueno v. National Indemnity Co. 656 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Gonzalez-Burgueno v. National Indemnity Co. 656 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    Neither Kellner v. Lewis, supra, nor Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc., , involved an insurer attempting to represent an insured where it had been denied the right to intervene in the action.