Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d 855.
- Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Wells Fargo v. Safe Wing
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶10 Safe Wing additionally argues that, under Brown v. Beck, courts “should be liberal in relieving parties of defaults caused by inadvertence and excusable neglect.”
- Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Manola v. Espinoza
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., –56, –29 (1982) ( in setting forth certain non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in the trial court).
- Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes
97 P.3d 876
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., -56 , -29 (1982) ( , ).
- State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 998 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 2000
- Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
- Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
- Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital 578 P.2d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-
Smith v. John C. Lincoln Hospital
578 P.2d 630
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
stated: The words “abuse of discretion” as used in many cases in reference to the action of a trial court is defined as, in the case of Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. Foster, 170 S.C.
- Davis v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
Davis v. Superior Court
544 P.2d 226
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the defendant was operating under the mistaken belief he was served on a day subsequent to that shown on the process server’s return.
- Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
- Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
- In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
- In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
- Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
- Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
- Arizona Securities, Inc. v. Keene 360 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1961
-
Arizona Securities, Inc. v. Keene
360 P.2d 221
Ariz. 1961
Thomas w. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, , .” However, it must be kept in mind that when a court exceeds its jurisdiction it is without authority to apply its sound discretion on the matter in question.
- State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
-
State v. Douglas
349 P.2d 622
Ariz. 1960
163 P. 264 ; , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 ; , ; , .
- Eldridge v. Jagger 317 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1957
- Eldridge v. Jagger 317 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1957
- Bowman v. Hall 316 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1957
-
Bowman v. Hall
316 P.2d 484
Ariz. 1957
858: “ * * * the term ‘abuse of discretion’ does not mean any reflection upon the presiding judge and does not carry with it an implication of conduct deserving censure, but is strictly a legal term indicating that the appellate court is of the opinion that under the circumstances the trial judge
- Roberts v. Malott 292 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1956
- Marsh v. Riskas 236 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1951
-
Marsh v. Riskas
236 P.2d 746
Ariz. 1951
Appellee cites numerous Arizona cases, , ; , ; , ; , 125 P. 873 , among others, to the general effect that default judgments are not favored, since it does not result in a determination of the merits of a c
- Rogers v. Tapo 230 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1951
- Rogers v. Tapo 230 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1951
- Rawlins v. Wilson 187 P.2d 322 Ariz. 1947
-
Rawlins v. Wilson
187 P.2d 322
Ariz. 1947
Though we are well aware of the presumption in favor of the validity of the findings of the trial court, we believe defendant’s affidavit fulfills the requirements of showing both surprise, , , and the existence of a meritorious defense, Security Trust & , 234 P. 828 ; , ; , , which necessitates setting aside the default judgment and permitting th
- Painter v. Freije 176 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1947
-
Painter v. Freije
176 P.2d 690
Ariz. 1947
— For good causé shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).” , , a case having reference to a default judgment, , 125 P. 873 , as follows: “The exercise of the discretion ought to tend, in a reasonable degree at least, to bring about a judgment on the very merits of.