Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co., 640 P.2d 847.

46 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Hudson Oil Co., (the movant must show “facts which, if proven at trial, would constitute a meritorious defense”).
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
v. Hudson Oil Co., see also Koven, 128 Ariz. at 321 (“The right of an insurer to move to set aside a default judgment against its insured, either on behalf of the insured or on its own behalf, is well recognized in Arizona.” ()).
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Jorge Othon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Jorge Othon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
v. Hudson Oil Co. , , 289, , 851 (1982) ), that is not "facially unmeritorious," Emcasco Ins.
Imh v. Recorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Imh v. Recorp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
v. Hudson Oil Co., (requiring the movant to show “facts which, if proven at trial, would constitute a meritorious defense”); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Hudson Oil Co., , (requiring that a motion to set aside a default judgment be supported “with facts which, if proven at trial, would constitute a meritorious defense” (citations omitted)).
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., , ( , , ).
Miller v. National Franchise Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Miller v. National Franchise Services, Inc. 807 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co., Inc.
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Dr. Bodnar filed a notice of appeal to this court and raised the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the default judgment based on Rule 60(c)(6), , (2) whether Goglia’s amended complaint vacated the default judgment; (3) whether Goglia waived the default by allowing Dr. Bodnar to file an answer and participate in discovery; (4) whether the trial court erred in finding that Dr. Bodnar’s neglect was inexcusable; and (5) whether the
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Richas v. Superior Court, supra
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
While the mere conclusion of a lawyer or client that a defense exists is insufficient, United Imports and Exports, , the required affidavit “is not intended to be a substitute for trial on the facts” and need only show “that there is a substantia] defense to the action.”
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1082 Ariz. 1984
Webb v. Erickson, supra, 134 Ariz. at 189 , 655 P.2d at 13 ; -88 , -50 (1982).
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc., , Richas v. Superior Court, supra
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
Evans v. Arthur 678 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1984
Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Union Oil Co. of California
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
the insurer did not receive the summons and complaint forwarded to it by its insured.
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982