Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court, 653 P.2d 691.

66 citing documents.

Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin 460 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2020
Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin 460 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2020
and Exps., (“A discretionary finding of fact based on no evidence is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.”).
Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
& Exp., (“A showing of a meritorious defense requires a showing by affidavit, deposition or testimony of some facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a defense.”); (holding that a trial court may not “set aside a default judgment because of the amount of damages
Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
National v. Rico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
National v. Rico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
& Exps., (“We cannot presume, nor should the trial court, that an unexplained delay of approximately thirteen weeks in seeking relief is ‘prompt action.’”).
Beltz v. Greystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beltz v. Greystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court of State In & For Maricopa Cnty.
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
& Exps., (“In the absence of any reasonable explanation of such a delay, the trial court has no facts upon which to exercise its discretion.”) (emphasis added) (citing Richas, 133 Ariz. at 515).
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
United Imports and Exports
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See also United Imports and Exports, , (neglect of attorney is attributed to the client; unless attorney’s neglect is legally excusable, the client will not be excused); Liberty Mut.
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 141 P.3d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Cervantes v. Cates 76 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Id.; United Imports and Exports
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Grand Real Estate, -15 , -49 (App.1983); United Imports and Exports
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
See, e.g., United Imports and Exports, , Ariz.R.Civ.P.
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 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
United Imports and Exports, Inc, v. Superior Court
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
United Imports and Exports
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, e.g., United Imports and Exports, , Coconino Pulp &amp
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8287 828 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8287 828 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
United Imports and Exports
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
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
And, in United Imports & Exports, , the supreme court, noting that “the remedy by appeal is inadequate,” accepted special action jurisdiction to review an order vacating a default judgment.
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
Our supreme court stated in United Imports and Exports, , : We have consistently held that such motions may be granted in the trial court’s discretion when, but only when, the moving party has made an adequate showing of each of the following elements: (1) that it acted promptly in seeking relief from the default judgment, (2) that its failure to file a
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
United Imports and Exports, , Addison v. Cienega, Ltd.