Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Bill by and Through Bill v. Gossett, 647 P.2d 649.
- Pettit v. Pettit 189 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Pettit v. Pettit
189 P.3d 1102
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ariz. Light & Power Co., , ("[W]here an action has for its primary purpose the obtaining of independent relief, and the vacating or setting aside of a judgment is merely incidental thereto, such action is not a direct, but a collateral, attack upon the judgment.”); , , *532 651 (App.1982) (characterizing filing of second paternity action after first action was dismissed with prejudice as collateral attack upon former judgment)
- Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
-
Hall v. Lalli
977 P.2d 776
Ariz. 1999
(concluding that minor child and her mother had been in privity at time of mother’s earlier paternity action and child was therefore barred from bringing subsequent action against same man).
- Stephenson v. NASTRO IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 967 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
Stephenson v. NASTRO IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA
967 P.2d 616
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Indeed, even before these statutory restrictions existed, we historically prohibited a collateral attack on a prior determination of paternity, absent an evidentiary showing that the prior determination was “the product of extrinsic fraud” by “affirmative proof of irregularity.”
- Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
-
Hall v. Lalli
952 P.2d 748
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whether there is privity between a parent and a child in this context is a somewhat novel question which appears to have been addressed in only one Arizona decision, , wherein Division One of this court found such privity to exist.
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Smith v. Saxon 918 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-
Smith v. Saxon
918 P.2d 1088
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Saxon contacted Smith to discuss a settlement in light of this court’s , (prior paternity judgment in unsuccessful suit brought by state immune from collateral attack by minor).
- Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
- State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7359 766 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7359 766 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- In re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9365 759 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- In re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9365 759 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135 747 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135 747 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners
745 P.2d 617
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Roberson v. Teel, 20 Ariz.App.
- State v. Moran 728 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
State v. Moran
728 P.2d 243
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Given the presumption of regularity of judicial proceedings, , and the fact that at the time of defendant’s prior convictions counsel was constitutionally required, we hold that defendant must offer some evidence that prior convictions were obtained without counsel before the court must disregard proved prior convictions.
- De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
De Noyelles v. De Noyelles
703 P.2d 584
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-21 , -52 (App.1982), the Court of Appeals said: “A judgment regular on its face, entered by a court of general jurisdiction, enjoys a presumption of regularity.
- Traphagan v. Maricopa County Superior Court 666 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1983
- Traphagan v. Maricopa County Superior Court 666 P.2d 76 Ariz. 1983