Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 165 P.2d 173.

40 citing documents.

Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
P.2d 173 (1946), but the defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Waddell v. Titan Ins. Co., Inc. 88 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Waddell v. Titan Ins. Co., Inc. 88 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(default constitutes judicial admission of well-pleaded facts in the complaint).
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
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Beyerle Sand & Gravel, , , Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Clugston v. Moore 655 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Clugston v. Moore 655 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Southern Arizona School for Boys, , , 165 *
SOUTHERN ARIZ. SCH. FOR BOYS, INC. v. Chery 580 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
SOUTHERN ARIZ. SCH. FOR BOYS, INC. v. Chery 580 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
but the defendant is not held to admit facts that *282 are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
179 P. 956 (1919); Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Co., 22 Ariz.App.
Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corp. 529 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corp. 529 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc. 517 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc. 517 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Edwards v. Van Voorhis 463 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Edwards v. Van Voorhis 463 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
but not of the amount of damages due the condemnee which may be contested at the default hearing, 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1216, at 86; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.07, at 1822 (2d ed. 1953); 49 C.J.S.
Reed v. Frey 458 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Reed v. Frey 458 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Collister v. Inter-State Fidelity Building & Loan Assn., , , 98 A.L.R.
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
but in an unliquidated damage case not of the amount of recovery.
Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967
85 P. 244 ; Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
Preston v. Denkins 382 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1963
Brown v. Beck 169 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1946
Brown v. Beck 169 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1946
-.This rule does not limit the power of a court (1) to entertain an action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or (2) to set aside within one (1) year a judgment obtained against a defendant not actually personally notified.” , , we said: “It is the law that this statute vests in the trial court the discretionary power to determine whether or not the party may be relieved from such a judgment.” Later on in the case we said: “The real question here is, did the court abuse it