DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc., 581 P.2d 682.

65 citing documents.

  • McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. 2026
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., State ex rel.
  • JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • JARVIS v. ASSA ABLOY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    at ¶ 23 (quoting Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., ).
  • In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to D.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to D.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (“A party has made a general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.”); see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“[A] general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”); Ariz. R.P.
  • McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    The Arizona Supreme Court applied the rule in just this way in Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc.
  • Bondurant v. Yelle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Bondurant v. Yelle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    The superior court’s finding that Wife had actual knowledge of the proceedings did not salvage its jurisdiction, because a party’s actual knowledge of a pending lawsuit “will not operate to cure a defect in service.” with Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”).
  • State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“No general rule is better established than that a witness cannot be contradicted for the purposes of impeachment as to collateral matters.”).
  • Ingram v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Ingram v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (a party’s appearance despite lack of service renders service unnecessary).
  • Sharon Crain-Hodge v. Sharnai Fisher Ariz. 2022
  • Sharon Crain-Hodge v. Sharnai Fisher Ariz. 2022
    P. 4(f)(3)–(4); see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”).
  • Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Stevens-El v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., ("It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.").
  • Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    A “general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.” Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc.
  • Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Dellaripa v. Hon. holding/dellaripa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    HOLDING/DELLARIPA Decision of the Court See also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”).
  • Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    These repeated failures to object waived this argument on appeal.5 See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (a party may not claim a jury instruction was in error on appeal if he or she did not object before the jury receives the instructions and retires to consider its verdict); Trustmark Ins.
  • Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    titute a general appearance,” Burton, 205 Ariz. at 29, ¶ 8 ( and Austin, 10 Ariz. App. at 477), and “it is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.” Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (citations omitted).
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Inc., -54 (1978) (jury instruction); (Amtrak), 929 F. Supp. 414, 415 (S.D.
  • Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Krieger v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., (“It is settled that an appellate court will not review on appeal alleged error at trial [if] the appealing party has failed to make a proper record in the form of an objection, stating specifically the grounds therefore or, if the ruling is one excluding evidence, an offer of proof.”)
  • 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
    see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., , (filing of answer without having been served with process constituted voluntary appearance); , (participating in joint pretrial statement without mentioning defense of insufficient service of process constituted volunta
  • Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
  • Cohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 874 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1994
    Generally, an offer of proof “is a prerequisite to an appellate argument of admissibility of excluded evidence.” , (citing Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., , ).
  • Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 813 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 813 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc., , (failure to object at trial to an error in the jury instructions amounts to waiver).
  • Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
  • Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
    Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc.
  • Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    See Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc.
  • Warfel v. Cheney 758 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Warfel v. Cheney 758 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc.
  • Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
  • Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
    See Rule 51(a), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.; -54 , -88 (1978).
  • Marriage of Molloy v. Molloy 761 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Marriage of Molloy v. Molloy 761 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    Though offers of proof are usually prerequisite to appellate argument against the exclusion of evidence, Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc., , there are exceptions to the rule.
  • 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
    The real party in interest cites Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc., , to support her argument regarding waiver.
  • Reilly v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 687 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984