Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hinton v. Hotchkiss, 174 P.2d 749.

30 citing documents.

Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
¶54 Generally speaking, parties are free to waive any number of rights, even constitutional rights such as the right to appeal, –14 (1946), the right to counsel, –23 (1994), the right to a jury trial, –66 (1976), and the right to be present during criminal proceedings, ¶ 54 (2003).
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
are an integral part of the right itself and are not solely procedural.”
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re One Residence at 319 E. Fairgrounds Dr. 71 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
The attorney general, in an amicus curiae brief, argues that the attorney general has a substantive right to participate in the appeal.1 Although that is true, the remedy allowed for an appellant’s failure to serve the attorney general is not “an integral part of the right [to appeal] itself” and, therefore, is “solely procedural.” (bar of cross-claims and counterclaims in forcible entry and detainer actions “an integral part of the right itself” and, therefore, “not solely procedural”).
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
Jenkins v. First Baptist Church 801 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Jenkins v. First Baptist Church 801 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
are an integral part of the right itself and are not solely procedural.”
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.
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
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
Farmers Insurance Group v. Worth Insurance Co. 443 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Farmers Insurance Group v. Worth Insurance Co. 443 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
State v. Superior Court 344 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1959
State v. Superior Court 344 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1959
Neyens v. Donato 188 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1948
Neyens v. Donato 188 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1948
there was involved an interpretation of Section 27-1207, A.C.A.
Byrd v. Peterson 186 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1947
Byrd v. Peterson 186 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1947
we pointed out that procedural provisions of the forcible detainer statutes are an integral part of the right itself and not solely procedural and hence are not superseded by the new Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the timely presentation and prosecution of counterclaim and cross complaints.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 177 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1947