Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Copper State Bank v. Saggio, 679 P.2d 84.

29 citing documents.

State v. Snow-Ingram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murtagian v. Entity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Murtagian v. Entity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flury v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Flury v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We hold Mother “to the same familiarity with required procedures and the same notice of statutes and local rules as would be attributed to a qualified member of the bar.”
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Corp., ¶ 16 (App. 2000); (persons representing themselves are “held to the same familiarity with required procedures” as an attorney).
State v. Garfio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Feliciano v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Feliciano v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
FELICIANO v. PENZONE, et al. Decision of the Court Arizona law, a pro se party “is entitled to no more consideration than if he had been represented by counsel, and he is held to the same familiarity with required procedures and the same notice of statutes and local rules as would be attributed to a qualified member of the bar.” (citations omitted).
Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Culver City v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Culver City v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gillespie-Muldrew v. Muldrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gillespie-Muldrew v. Muldrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “It is well established that where a party conducts [her] case in propria persona [s]he is entitled to no more consideration than if [s]he had been represented by counsel, and [s]he is held to the same familiarity with required procedures and the same notice of statutes and local rules as would be attributed to a qualified member of the bar.”
Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Kelly v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. 17 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Marriage of Higgins v. Higgins 981 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Marriage of Higgins v. Higgins 981 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Verde Ditch Co. v. James 758 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Verde Ditch Co. v. James 758 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., -124 , -02 (1979) (default entered after defendants failed to respond to plaintiffs’ interrogatories in disobedience of order compelling discovery) -41 , -87 (App.1983) (default entered after defendants failed to appear *372 at their depositions with no previous order to compel discovery) and American Title & Trust Co. v. Hughes, 4 Ariz.App.
Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields 704 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields 704 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
as would be attributed to a qualified member of the bar.”