Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman, 459 P.2d 753.

43 citing documents.

McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. 2026
McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
McMahan v. Grasshopper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Herman, (declining to address argument that service was improper where defendant “made a ‘general appearance’ and therefore, waived defects in service.”).
State v. Castorena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castorena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Herman, (“For a judgment to be valid and binding the party affected must have been legally serve[d] with process or must have voluntarily appeared.”).
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz 381 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scott v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Herman, (“For a judgment to be valid and binding the party affected must have been legally serve[d] with process or must have voluntarily appeared.”) (emphasis added); see also A.R.S.
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Herman, , is misplaced because it also involved notice requirements under Rule 55(b)(1).
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Burton 66 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Herman, [ , ]: [A]n appearance is always a matter of intention and is not to be inferred, except as a result of acts from which an intent may be properly inferred, [citations omitted.]
Tarr v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 690 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1984
Tarr v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 690 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1984
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Herman, , our court held, in part, that defendants in a condemnation proceeding whose default was entered for failure to file an answer had nevertheless made an “appearance” requiring notice of the hearing on the amount of damages to which they were entitled.
Anderson v. Wilson 680 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Skates v. Stockton 683 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Skates v. Stockton 683 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Knox v. Knox 671 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Knox v. Knox 671 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Herman, , the court found that the defendants, by personally appearing at a show cause hearing and calling witnesses on their behalf, had recognized the case as being in court and sought affirmative relief.
Kadota v. Hosogai 608 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Kadota v. Hosogai 608 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Gustafson v. McDade 548 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gustafson v. McDade 548 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Dungan v. Superior Court in & for County of Pinal 512 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Dungan v. Superior Court in & for County of Pinal 512 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Herman, , Reed v. Frey, 10 Ariz.App.