Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc., 666 P.2d 49.

105 citing documents.

Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
lez v. Nguyen , , 534 ¶ 12, , 1166 (2018) ("[W]e have consistently bounded a trial court's discretion under [Civil Rule 60(b)(6)] by requiring a defendant to assert a meritorious defense."); Daou v. Harris , , 358-59, , 939-40 (1984) (stating that Civil Rule 60(b) requires a showing of a meritorious defense); Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc. , , 309, , 54 (1983) (requiring a meritorious defense when alleging excusable neglect under Civil Rule 60(b)(1)); DeHoney v. Hernandez , , 371, , 163 (1979)
Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Gainey Ranch v. Kraft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Whether a court has jurisdiction over a person is established by “the fact of service and the resulting notice.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
Dominguez v. National Shotcrete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. National Shotcrete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
However, “carelessness is not synonymous with excusable neglect.” Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc.
Roundtable v. Schmedding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Roundtable v. Schmedding Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., , ("Where a default judgment has been entered, the defaulting party's primary remedy is a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Ariz. R, Civ.
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., (“Where a default judgment has been entered, the defaulting party’s primary remedy is a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ.
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Fields, (noting the trial court is “in a better position in a particular case to balance the principle of finality of judgments and the principle of resolving issues on the merits”) ( and Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., ).
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Husband did not reference the underlying order denying his motion to enforce in his notice of appeal; therefore, this appeal “does not extend to a review of whether the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief was sought.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, (citations omitted).
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We review a superior court’s denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment only for “a clear abuse of discretion.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
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., , ( , , ).
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
Although he acknowledges that a party seeking relief from a default judgment generally must move to set aside the default judgment before filing an appeal, see Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., -12 , -57 (1983) (holding that a direct appeal from a default judgment is not permitted unless the default judgment “was not authorized by Rule 55 or if there is a question regarding either personal or subject matter jurisdiction”), he argues that this general rule does not apply in this case becaus
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
consider[]” assignment of error when “[a]n examination of the notice of appeal indicate[d] that no appeal [had been] taken from the ruling of the court” that appellant had claimed was erroneous); cf. Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., (“The scope of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60 motion is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside .
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc., P.2d 49 (1983), our supreme court stated that service by registered mail on an out-of-state corporate defendant under former Rule 4(e)(1) and (2) could be valid even though the requisite affidavit had not stated the circumstances warranting the procedure that had been used.
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc.
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
Although “it is a highly desirable legal objective that cases be decided on their merits,” we review the trial court’s refusal to set aside a default judgment only for “a clear abuse of discretion.” Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., , see also General Elec.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, 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
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
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
See Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
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
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
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
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
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