Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp, 836 P.2d 398.

32 citing documents.

Arizona Off Duty v. Good Vibe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Off Duty v. Good Vibe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Montes v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Montes v. Montes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-90 (App. 1992)) (interpreting the analogous Rule under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure).
Murrell v. Tovar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Murrell v. Tovar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Durbin v. Keller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Durbin v. Keller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tittelbach v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tittelbach v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶16 the defendant failed to file an answer based upon a misunderstanding of the procedural rules, namely that if an answer was filed after the 10-day grace period provided for by Rule 55, but before a motion for entry of default judgment was filed, the answer would still be valid, the delay in the filing
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(reviewing court will not “second-guess or substitute [its] judgment” for trial court’s resolution of disputed fact).
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Champlin Stopinski, Skipton and Assoc. v. Bank of America 293 P.3d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp (Osterkamp I)
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
The prior rule did not require the moving party to notify the defaulting party that default was to be entered, and consequently, lack of notice was a frequent basis to set aside entry of default.
Blair v. Burgener 245 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Blair v. Burgener 245 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶20 Corbet’s interpretation of Rule 55(a) -90 , -04 (App.1992).
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
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
(counsel’s erroneous belief that no judgment could be taken if an answer was filed before a motion for default judgment not legally excusable); M & M Auto Storage Pool v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., , (counsel’s view that dism
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
The relevant facts of the Santa Cruz County case are set forth in this court’s

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by