Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cockerham v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739.

86 citing documents.

Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(“motions for relief from final judgments based on neglect must be filed under Rule 60(c)(1), not 60(c)(6)”); M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (relief under Rule 60(c)(6) not precluded by absence of e
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
(erroneous judgments are those which have been issued by a court with jurisdiction but which are subject to reversal on timely appeal).
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
Although the argument was based on this court’s , the court of appeals found that our reference to “reversible error” in Cockerham was dictum and thus should not be treated as binding precedent.
Creach v. Angulo 925 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Creach v. Angulo 925 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
They rely on Cockerham, v. Zikratch, , for this assertion.
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
(distinguishing between erroneous judgments and void judgments).
Porter v. Estate of Pigg 854 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Porter v. Estate of Pigg 854 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In our opinion, the use of the words “void” and “lacks jurisdiction” in these cases is improper under the following reasoning of the Arizona Supreme Court: , the term “void” is often misused.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
De Noyelles v. De Noyelles 703 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
: “Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties____ Erroneous judgments are those which have been issued by a court with jurisdiction but which are subject to reversal on timely direct appeal.” (Citations omitted).
Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc. 688 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1984
Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc. 688 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1984
United Imports & Exports
Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Distinguished Endischee v. Endischee 685 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In support of this argument, , and Rule 12(i).
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Gallegos v. Industrial Commission 695 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Cocker *308 , Chavez v. State of Ind., Logansport Hosp.
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
Auman v. Auman 653 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1982
the term “void” is often misused.
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
which involved direct service out of state on a non-resident individual defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2)(b).
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix 651 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
48 Ariz. at 392-93 , 62 P.2d at 137 ; accord, , see Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co., supra.
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980