DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412.

30 citing documents.

  • Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
  • Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
    Comm’n, –50 (1967); (“When the rendering court in a contested hearing determines it has jurisdiction, its determination is res judicata on the jurisdictional issue and cannot be relitigated in another state.”).
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Danko v. Danko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (discussing collateral attacks on a foreign court's jurisdiction).
  • McDaniel v. Banes 471 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • McDaniel v. Banes 471 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶9 The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution “requires that a judgment validly rendered in one state’s court be accorded the same validity and effect in every other court in the country as it had in the state rendering it.” Lofts v. Superior Court (Perry)
  • Funding Metrics v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Funding Metrics v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    DISCUSSION ¶5 “The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution requires that a judgment validly rendered in one state’s court be accorded the same validity and effect in every other court in the country as it had in the state rendering it.” see also U.S. Const. art 4, § 1.
  • Strobel v. Rosier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Strobel v. Rosier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “[A] duly authenticated judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state is prima facie evidence of that court’s jurisdiction to render it and of the right which it purports to adjudicate.”
  • ades/taylor v. Pandola 382 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/taylor v. Pandola 382 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ct. in and for Maricopa Cty., , (stating that a “judgment validly rendered in one state’s court [must] be accorded the same validity and effect in every other court in the country as it had in the state rendering it”).
  • Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    [p]romote cooperation with the courts of other states”); , (applying Full Faith and Credit Clause to child custody decrees).
  • Cho v. American Bonding Co. 951 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Cho v. American Bonding Co. 951 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
  • J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
    § 61-1308(l)(c); , (finding that evidence supported jurisdiction based on the significant connection or emergency provisions of the UCCJA).
  • J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (provisions of UCCJA define “custody proceedings” to include actions for dissolution or modification of custody under Title 25).
  • Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Palm v. Superior Ct., 97 Cal.App.3d 456 , 158 Cal.Rptr.
  • Alegria v. Redcherries 812 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Alegria v. Redcherries 812 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    2099 , 2104 n. 9, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 , 501 n. 9 (1982)
  • Pioneer Federal Savings Bank v. Driver 804 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Pioneer Federal Savings Bank v. Driver 804 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
  • Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
    “The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution requires that a judgment validly rendered in one state’s court be accorded the same validity and effect in every other court in the country as it had in the state rendering it.”
  • Leon v. Numkena 689 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Leon v. Numkena 689 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    3 If the underlying facts relating to subject matter jurisdiction had been in dispute, our inquiry would shift to whether these facts were res judicata as having been “fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.”