Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marks v. LaBerge, 703 P.2d 559.

38 citing documents.

Titlemax v. Fornaris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Titlemax v. Fornaris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶10 Process is intended to give a defendant notice “of the proceedings against him and that he is answerable to the claim of the plaintiff.”
Do v. Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Do v. Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
B of a v. Cheek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B of a v. Cheek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Process § 63; (construing service rule’s reference to service at “dwelling house or usual place of abode” liberally where defendant receives actual notice).
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(affirming denial of Rule 60(c)(6) relief where the court could reasonably infer the defendant “simply chose not to respond to the summons and complaint”).
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
307, ¶ 8, , 923 (App. 2010) ("It is axiomatic that actual notice via publication is less certain...."); Marks v. LaBerge , , 15, , 562 (App. 1985) (citing Scott v. G.A.C.
National v. Rico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
National v. Rico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fine Point v. Occidental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fine Point v. Occidental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Washington v. Pellerito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(noting that a trial court concludes whether “a particular location is the person’s ‘dwelling house or usual place of abode’ based on the facts specific to that case”) (citing French, 137 Ariz. at 246, 669 P.2d at 1023).
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Subject matter jurisdiction is “the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.”
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Board is statutorily authorized to establish the terms under which it will transact business, including, but not limited to, providing for the judicial review of specific Board decisions.” ¶13 “Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’” see also State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’”
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
76 n. 4, , 878 n. 4 (1990) (“ ‘Subject matter jurisdiction’ relates to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to decide a case.”); Chacon, , (“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’ ”)
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
3, ¶ 5 (“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’”)
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
See, -15 , -62 (App.1985) (service was achieved pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ.
State v. Chacon 212 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Chacon 212 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DISCUSSION ¶ 5 Subject matter jurisdiction is “the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.”
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶14 Subject matter jurisdiction is “the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.”
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 14 Subject matter jurisdiction is “the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.”
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
Melton v. SUPERIOR COURT, GILA COUNTY 739 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Melton v. SUPERIOR COURT, GILA COUNTY 739 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Kim Melton argues that we should construe Rule 4(d) liberally to affirm the trial court’s order refusing to quash service.