Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson, 599 P.2d 772.

32 citing documents.

McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. 2026
n.5 (1979); Preston, 94 Ariz. at 219; Hughes v. Indus.
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
Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson , , 323, n.5, , 776, n.5 (1979).
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honeywell v. Kilgore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
West 2015).2 DISCUSSION I. Honeywell’s Appeal ¶10 “The Full Faith and Credit Clause of [Article 2, Section 1] the United States Constitution requires that a judgment rendered in a state court be accorded the same validity and effect in every other court in the United States as it has in the state rendering it.” -23 (1979).
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
85(C)(3) (permitting a court to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court in an independent action); , 599 P.2d *232 772, 775 (1979) (“The reasonable time requirement of Rule 60(c) does not apply, however, when a judgment is attacked as void.”); , (“A judgment or order is ‘void’ if the court entering it lacked jurisdiction: (1) over the subject matter
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Sherman 260 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Sherman 260 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
When a judgment is void due to lack of jurisdiction, “the court has no discretion, but must vacate the judgment.” , 323 n. 5, , 776 n. 5 (1979).
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
When a judgment is void due to lack of jurisdiction, “the court has no discretion, but must vacate the judgment.” , 323 n. 5, , 776 n. 5 (1979).
Giehrl v. Royal Aloha Vacation Club, Inc. 937 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Giehrl v. Royal Aloha Vacation Club, Inc. 937 P.2d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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
323 n. 5, , 776 n. 5 (1979); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5860
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
is subject to direct attack under Rule 60(c) Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
National Investment Co. v. Estate of Bronner 704 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
National Investment Co. v. Estate of Bronner 704 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Lofts v. Superior Court 682 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1984
Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Matson v. Matson 333 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1983
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
604 , and cases cited therein
Firedoor Corp. of America v. Tibshraeny Bros. Construction, Inc. 616 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Firedoor Corp. of America v. Tibshraeny Bros. Construction, Inc. 616 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Phares v. Nutter 609 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1980
Phares v. Nutter 609 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1980