Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rogers v. Tapo, 230 P.2d 522.

40 citing documents.

Dcb v. Foreman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dcb v. Foreman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. TrustCash LLC 293 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
10 ¶ 14 Because the 1975 amendment substantially changed existing procedure by permitting a plaintiff seeking liquidated damages to obtain a default judgment by motion without hearing, Arizona cases construing previous versions of Rule 55(b), , are inapposite, and do not support the holding in BYS.
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“An appearance does not prevent a party from being in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend,” but it does require the entry of default judgment to occur by hearing as provided 22 in Rule 55(b)(2).
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(citing Hoffman v. New Jersey Fed’n, 106 F.2d 204 (3rd Cir.1939) (interpreting the federal rules of procedure); Commercial Cas.
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
McClintock cites two earlier Arizona cases
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
Brandt v. Daman Trailer Sales, Inc.
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Camacho v. Gardner, 104 Ariz. at 560 , 456 P.2d at 930 ; , -26 (1951).
Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers 436 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1968
McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers 436 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1968
we said: “An appearance does not prevent a party from being in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend, 3 Moore’s Fed.Pr., sec.
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
h would suggest that the trial court has any discretion in separating the default from the default judg *592 ment on such a motion, i. e., , , , , , -432 , 234 P. 32 (1925)
Bayham v. Maryland National Insurance Company 415 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Bayham v. Maryland National Insurance Company 415 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Nesbitt v. Nesbitt, 1 Ariz.App.
Patch v. Buros 410 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Patch v. Buros 410 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
is concerned with the procedural statute which is now Rule 55(b) (1) being the rule which requires three days notice of the hearing of the application for judgment by default being notice to a person who has theretofore appeared in the action.
Nesbitt v. Nesbitt 402 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Nesbitt v. Nesbitt 402 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw.
Coulas v. Smith 395 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1964
Coulas v. Smith 395 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1964
Annot., 51 A.L.R.2d 837 (1957).
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
Hendrie Buick Company v. MacK 355 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1960
Hendrie Buick Company v. MacK 355 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1960
Under Rules 55(c) and 60(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the court may, on motion made within a reasonable time but not later than six months after entry of a default judgment, relieve a party from such judgment “taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” , , where it was said: “This court has stated on many occasions that in order for a default to be set aside the party in default must show: (1) that his failure to answer within the time
Whitlock v. Boyer 271 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1954
Whitlock v. Boyer 271 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1954
Marsh v. Riskas 236 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1951
Marsh v. Riskas 236 P.2d 746 Ariz. 1951
547 , this court said: “Under section 21-1502, * * * as under section 3859, * * * we think it is necessary that a party asking to have a default judgment set aside, * * * must file with his motion a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and an affidavit showing that the party has a substantial and meritorious defense, and of what it consists.” , , this court affirmed the Swiss-helm case, saying: “As to excusable neglect the only showing made by defendant was contained