Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Deddens, 518 P.2d 1012.

36 citing documents.

ANDRICH v. THRASHER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ANDRICH v. THRASHER Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
P. 15(a)(5); (recognizing a defendant’s right to respond to a materially amended complaint).
Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint; the original complaint then has no further effect or authority).
Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Colby v. Colby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wife’s argument, however, ignores the general rule that when a “complaint is amended in a material way,” the original complaint becomes functus officio; a defendant has the right to respond to the amended complaint de novo; and “all subsequent proceedings are regarded as based on the amended complaint.” see Functus Officio, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“[W]ithout further authority or legal competence.
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶11 The authority Gilbert cites stands for the proposition that an amended complaint supersedes the pleading it amends because “a plaintiff may not pursue two complaints in the same action.” Mohave Concrete and Materials, ().
Caravetta v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Caravetta v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newspapers, Inc., (), the entire case proceeded on the issue of whether Caravetta pleaded a medical malpractice or an intentional tort claim within her original complaint.
MacH v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
MacH v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Superior Court, -43, -98 (App. 1984); -16 (1953); 194 P. 88, 90 (1920)
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Because the original complaint was superseded by the amended complaint, however, , , in this appeal we will not consider allegations contained in the former but not in the latter.
Penny Osuna v. Walmart Stores, Inc. Sam's Club Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Penny Osuna v. Walmart Stores, Inc. Sam's Club Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“When respondent filed an amended complaint, such pleading superseded his original complaint which then became 9 (“It is well settled that ordinarily a consent judgment is not subject to appellate review.”); Fa
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
at 591 , 416 P.2d at 1012 ; , (plaintiff cannot circumvent venue statute by uniting in complaint a personal action with a local action).
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Francini v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 937 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave Concrete & Materials, Inc. v. Scaramuzzo 739 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Mohave Concrete & Materials, Inc. v. Scaramuzzo 739 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
ABANDONMENT OF THE COUNTERCLAIM The trial court’s
Zuckernick v. Roylston 684 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Zuckernick v. Roylston 684 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The real parties in interest point to this court’s , and argue that it supports the respondent court herein.
Almadova v. Arnold 634 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Almadova v. Arnold 634 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Floyd v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COCHISE CTY. 610 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Floyd v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COCHISE CTY. 610 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, , therefore we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
Paragon Building Corp. v. Turner 580 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Paragon Building Corp. v. Turner 580 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Appellant cites several cases, , for the proposition that an amended complaint supersedes the original.
Bishop v. Marks 570 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Bishop v. Marks 570 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Haley v. Cochise County Hospital 556 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Haley v. Cochise County Hospital 556 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976