Wallen v. Jacobson
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold, therefore, that denial of petitioner’s request was erroneous.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we work.
Cited by
- Cacho v. Superior Court 821 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1991
- Reilly v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 687 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. 1984
- Morgensen v. Superior Court 617 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. 1980
- Penunuri v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. 1977
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Brown v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 593
- Wray v. Superior Court 308 P.2d 701
- Sherrill v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 493 P.2d 1230
- GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley 481 P.2d 526
- Massengill v. Superior Court 416 P.2d 1009
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. The petitioner is one of several defendants in a pending Pima County Superior Court action for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Maricopa County. She seeks review of a venue ruling by way of special action, and since appellate intervention is appropriate, we assume jurisdiction. Brown v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz.App. 434 , 409 P.2d 593 (1966) ; Sherrill v. Superior Court, 16 Ariz.App. 425 , 493 P.2d 1230 (1972). The complaint filed below named several individual defendants and one corporate defendant. All were served with process in Maricopa County, the corporate defendant by service of process upon its statutory agent. Petitioner filed a timely motion for change of venue, supported by affidavit, requesting transfer of the action to Maricopa County where she resides. Her motion was denied, apparently for the reason that the corporate defendant had an agent and transacted business in Pima County. It is well settled that when a proper request for a change of venue has been made, transfer is mandatory. GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley, 14 Ariz. App. 156 , 481 P.2d 526 (1971); Massengill v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App. 588 , 416 P.2d 1009 (1966); Sherrill v. Superior Court, supra. We agree with petitioner that the principles enunciated by our Supreme Court in Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79 , 308 P.2d 701 (1957), control the case sub judice. In Wray , the court held that A.R.S. § 12-401, subsec. 18, as amended, permitting suit against a corporation in any county in which the cause of action arose or in the county in which it had an agent, owned property or conducted business, did not authorize the joinder of a defendant residing outside the county when he makes timely objection thereto. We hold, therefore, that denial of petitioner’s request was erroneous. The order denying the motion for change of venue is hereby vacated and the trial court is directed to enter an appropriate order of transfer not inconsistent with this opinion.