Cited by

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

154 citing documents.

Master Financial, Inc. v. Woodburn 90 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Master Financial, Inc. v. Woodburn 90 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
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
In other words, a defaulted defendant must show that “it acted promptly in seeking relief from the entry of default.”
Brewer v. Gerson 945 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1997
Brewer v. Gerson 945 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1997
While we agree that finality must attach to judgments, , Ariz. R. Civ.
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The neglect must be “excusable,” not merely “unexplained.”
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
Corbet v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Corbet v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(standards for vacating entry of default and for vacating default judgment are the same).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Sanders v. Cobble 744 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1987
Sanders v. Cobble 744 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1987
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Globe Electric, Inc., 20 Ariz.App.
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, e.g., United Imports and Exports
Echols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 732 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Echols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 732 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(order vacating entry of default is not appealable); Borg- Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Globe Electric, Inc., 20 Ariz.App.
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hyman v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. 724 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
However, , the supreme court specifically held that an unexplained five-week delay in filing a motion seeking relief from entry of a default pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 60(c) provided the trial court no basis upon which it could exercise its discretion to determine the moving party had acted “reasonably p
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
An order vacating an entry of default is not an appealable order, , and because we believe the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order, we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
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., supra
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Marks v. LaBerge 703 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields 704 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields 704 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
See United Imports and Exports, , ("We cannot presume, nor should the trial court, that an unexplained delay of approximately thirteen weeks in seeking relief is ‘prompt action’ ”); , (trial court could not assume that an unexplained five-week delay in filing was reasonable).
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
United Imports and Exports
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1983
Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 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
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
United Imports and Exports, , , Phillips v. Findlay, 19 Ariz.App.