Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 167 P.2d 394.

73 citing documents.

McGrew v. Brunet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
McGrew v. Brunet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Mullen v. Mullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mullen v. Mullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
3 MULLEN v. MULLEN, et al. Decision of the Court remedy for obtaining possession of the premises withheld by a tenant.”
Ncr Investments v. Maxfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) ().
Rural Road v. Acupuncture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Rural Road v. Acupuncture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Rushing, Mead, Samuel & United Effort Plan Tr.
Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶7 The purpose of an FED “action is to afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises.”
Voliner v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Voliner v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–06 (1946) (explaining that “if the plaintiff failed to establish a [landlord-tenant] relationship or his right to possession then the Justice of the Peace should have dismissed the complaint”); E-Z Livin’ Mobile Sales, (“We think the trial court was justified in fi
Bucks Financial v. Overley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Bucks Financial v. Overley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
By limiting the scope of FED actions, Arizona law “afford[s] a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises[.]”
Harrington v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Harrington v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
FED actions exist to provide “a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises withheld by a tenant.”
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tempe v. Sussex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tempe v. Sussex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
and in such an action the Court may determine the question of which party has the paramount legal title to the premises for the purpose of determining who has the right to possession.”
Bank of Ny v. Backholm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bank of Ny v. Backholm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thus[,] the only appropriate judgment is the dismissal of the complaint or the grant of possession to the plaintiff.” ()).
Tucson Lot 4, LLC v. Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. 385 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Lot 4, LLC v. Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. 385 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(object of FED action is to afford summary, speedy, and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises withheld by tenant in violation of tenancy or lease); , 180 P. 526, 527 (1919) (FED *322 action “lies under ...
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
United Effort Plan Trust v. Holm 101 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Mason v. Cansino 990 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Mason v. Cansino 990 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Indeed, forcible detainer was created by our legislature to provide “a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises.”
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Colonial Tri-City Ltd. Partnership v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc. 880 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Moreno v. Garcia 821 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Moreno v. Garcia 821 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Cottonwood Plaza Associates v. Nordale 644 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Cottonwood Plaza Associates v. Nordale 644 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
§ 12-1177(A) specifically prohibits this: “A. On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar 622 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar 622 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
and Gangadean v. Erickson, 17 Ariz.App.
Alton v. Tower Capital Co. 601 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1979
Alton v. Tower Capital Co. 601 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1979
Andreola v. Arizona Bank 550 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Andreola v. Arizona Bank 550 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
counterclaims may not be presented, , the merits of title may not be litigated, although the fact of title may be proved as a matter incidental to showing right of possession by an owner, , 414 P.2
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fridena v. Maricopa County 504 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
We further believe that, because the statutory action of forcible entry and detainer is well recognized to have been adopted to provide a summary and speedy remedy for obtaining possession of premises illegally withheld, , , the procedural language of the statute is substantive in nature and an integral part of the right itself.
Gangadean v. Erickson 495 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Gangadean v. Erickson 495 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Phoenix-Sunflower Industries, Inc. v. Hughes 464 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1970