Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Adoption of Hadtrath, 592 P.2d 1262.

38 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Id.; (explaining a judgment is void if the court lacks jurisdiction over a party).
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
A.S., Zeth W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A.S., Zeth W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 60(b)(3); -10 (1979) (fraudulent judgments are voidable and may be time-barred, as they do not affect the court's jurisdiction).5 Moreover, Zeth did not raise this argument in his 5 Although Rule 46(E) incorporates Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), Zeth does not argue that any of those exceptions apply here.
Clarritt v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Clarritt v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martin, 182 Ariz. at 15 ().
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“A judgment may be attacked as void upon its face if ...
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Corral Restaurants, Inc. 930 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1997
Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Corral Restaurants, Inc. 930 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1997
-09 , -65 (1979); , review denied (1995).
Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martin v. Martin 893 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JA-691 831 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JA-691 831 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Dillon-Malik, Inc. v. Wactor 728 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn 714 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn 714 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Boltz contends that the Arizona Supreme *364 Court in Adoption of Hadtrath, , has indicated that the doctrine of estoppel would bar parties from trifling with the courts in such manner.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See also, , (doctrine of fraud on the court provides equitable relief); , (equitable defense of laches applied where plaintiff maintained an independent action to set aside judgment).
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Tippit v. Lahr 646 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
jurisdiction to render the particular judgment or order entered [is lacking.]”