Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite U-Totem Store v. Walker, 691 P.2d 315.

29 citing documents.

Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
or client, sworn or unsworn, that ‘a 6 GONZALEZ et al. v. NGUYEN et al. Decision of the Court defense exists’ is evidence of nothing; it is a conclusion which carries no weight and is insufficient to establish the element of meritorious defense.” United Imps., 134 Ariz. at 46; (“A meritorious defense must be established by facts and not through conclusions, assumptions or affidavits based on other than personal knowledge.”); (superior court abused its discretion by setting aside a default judgme
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
process considerations, the court’s discretionary power to enter a default as a sanction “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., Montgomery Ward, 176 Ariz. at 622, 863 P.2d at 914 (“A party’s right to due process limits a trial court’s authority to strike a pleading.”); (“The law favors resolving a case on the merits rather than by default.”).
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
P. 59(a)(3) (“surprise” constitutes ground to vacate judgment or grant new trial); , (discovery rales applied to “facilitate identifying the issues, promote justice, ...
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co. of Cal., , 348 n. 5, , 849 n. 5 (App.1987)( , ).
Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 835 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 835 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
While this court does not routinely grant special action jurisdiction in discovery matters, , we accept jurisdiction in this case because “the subsequent course of litigation may be vitally affected by an erroneous order.” , see also Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App.
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Duquette v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Duquette v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Kott v. City of Phoenix 763 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1988
Kott v. City of Phoenix 763 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1988
Danielson v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Danielson v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
§ 12-120.21; Rule 1(a), Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987