Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC., 652 P.2d 1035.

154 citing documents.

Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Michael T. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Michael T. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.”
Nicole M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nicole M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶10 In order to establish good cause for failing to appear at the initial termination hearing, Mother was required to prove “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect exist[ed] and (2) a meritorious defense to the claims exist[ed].” Christy A., 217 Ariz. at 304, ¶ 16 ( and then Ariz. R. Civ.
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Since the delay [in filing the motion for relief from judgment] is not explained, there is no basis on which the court could exercise its discretion to find it reasonable.”) ().
Los Indios v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Los Indios v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Marwa M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marwa M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct. 66(D)(2); Christy A., 217 Ariz. at 304, ¶ 16, 173 P.3d at 468 ( ).
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Decision of the Court mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect exists and (2) a meritorious defense to the claims exists.”
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“The law favors resolution on the merits and therefore resolves all doubts in favor of the moving party.”
Danica F. v. Dcs, G.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Danica F. v. Dcs, G.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
("A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.").
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-15 (1982) (noting an unexplained thirty-four day delay in filing a motion to set aside provided no basis under which the trial court could determine whether the elements had been established); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct. of Ariz. In & For Maricopa Cty.
Lanza v. Holladay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lanza v. Holladay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Richas v. Superior Court (Motorola, Inc.)
Brian H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Brian H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.”).
Rustica D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rustica D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating “[a] meritorious defense must be established by facts and cannot be established through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge”).
Villalobos v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Villalobos v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The law favors resolution on the merits and therefore resolves all doubts in favor of the moving party.” (citations omitted).
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 304-05 ¶ 16, 173 P.3d at 469 ( ).
Nathan C. v. Ades, T.C., A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nathan C. v. Ades, T.C., A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that “[w]here there is no explanation for the delay, there is no excuse shown and no legal ground” to support a finding of good cause).
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
See Ariz. Mining & , 100 P. 952, 954 (1909) (requiring a party seeking relief from a judgment based on fraud or collusion to present “facts sufficient to show prima facie a valid defense”); , (requiring an appellant to “set forth facts which, if proved at the trial, would constitute a meritorious defense” to entry of a default judgment); Union Oil Co. of Cal.
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., , ( , , ).
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Additionally, “because default judgments are not favored, the same liberality that governs the application of the rules to a particular case should govern the interpretation of the rules, resolving any doubts in favor of the interpretation that facilitates deciding cases on their merits.” Harper, 219 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 4 , 200 P.3d at 1034 ( , ) (“[T]he trial court has broad discretion to resolve all doubts in favor of setting aside the entry of default of the judgment by default[.]”).
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Further, the law favors the resolution of a ease on its merits and “resolves all doubts in favor of the moving party.”
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(observing that all doubts as to whether a default should be set aside should be resolved in favor of the moving party); Cota v. S. Ariz. Bank & Trust, Co., 17 Ariz.App.
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007