Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Groat v. Equity American Insurance, 884 P.2d 228.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
Schooley v. pena/farmers 510 P.3d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Schooley v. pena/farmers 510 P.3d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., (finding Rule 55(a), which provides 10 days to cure a default, "inapplicable where an answer is stricken as a discovery sanction"); (describing "early English penal requirement whereby a person convicted of a crime forfeited his land and personal pr
Pino-Alvarez v. Erlichman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Pino-Alvarez v. Erlichman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., (“Rules of procedure and statutes are read in conjunction with each other and harmonized whenever possible.”).
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Distinguished McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., upon which Plaintiffs rely, are readily distinguishable.
Stannard v. Corner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stannard v. Corner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., -48 (App. 1994) (finding that the court needed only to give notice of the application of default judgment after striking garnishee’s answer for a bad faith discovery violation).
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Hansen 147 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Hansen 147 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co., , *147 (“Rules of procedure and statutes are read in conjunction with each other and harmonized whenever possible.”).
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Co., (“Rules of procedure and statutes are read in conjunction with each other and harmonized whenever possible.”).
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Co., , Sears Roebuck & , (“[T]he range of discretion for dismissal is narrow.”); , (a trial court’s discretion “as to the ultimate sanc *250 tions of dismissal and