DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc., 258 P.2d 816.

44 citing documents.

  • Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
  • Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
    Beyerle Sand & Gravel
  • Beyerle Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Martinez 574 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Beyerle Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Martinez 574 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Phillips v. Findlay 507 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Phillips v. Findlay 507 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    The facts must be examined in the strongest light possible in favor of the party prevailing in the trial court
  • Douglas v. Lease Investors, Inc. 504 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Douglas v. Lease Investors, Inc. 504 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    35 , Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc.
  • Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
  • Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
  • Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    In applying these rules, one - must also keep in mind two other-principles : First, the facts must be examined in the strongest light possible in favor of the party prevailing in the trial court, , , and, second, where the circumstances lead the court to hesitate upon the motion to open the default, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the motion.” The court further stated that the amendment to Rule 60(c) was designed to permit more liberal holdings in the type of case now before this Court.
  • In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
  • In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
  • Campbell v. FRAZER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 459 P.2d 300 Ariz. 1969
  • Campbell v. FRAZER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 459 P.2d 300 Ariz. 1969
    In applying these rules, one must also keep in mind two other principles: First, the facts must be examined in the strongest light possible in favor of the party prevailing in the trial court, , , and, second, where the circumstances lead the court to hesitate upon the motion to open the default, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the motion.
  • Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
  • Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
    In applying these rules, one must also keep in mind two other principles: First, the facts must be examined in the strongest light possible in favor of the party prevailing in the trial court, , , and, second, where the circumstances lead the court to hesitate upon the motion to open the default, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the motion.
  • 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
  • State v. Horn 449 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Horn 449 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    263 P. 625 (1928); , Gillette v. Lanier, 2 Ariz.App.
  • 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
  • Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    Prell v. Amado, supra, citing Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc.
  • Gillette v. Lanier 406 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Gillette v. Lanier 406 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    “In view of the disposition made of the motion it is apparent that the trial judge concluded that the failure of the defendant to answer the complaint was not attributable to illness but rather was occasioned by carelessness which in law is not synonymous with ‘excusable neglect’.” at 57 , at 817 (1953).
  • Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc.
  • 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
  • Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
  • Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
    604 ; , ; Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc., , ; , ; , 179 P. 956 ; , 125 P. 873 .
  • Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963
  • Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963
    Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc.
  • Overson v. Martin 363 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1961
  • Overson v. Martin 363 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1961
    ere concerned with whether or not the affidavit of the defendants upon which the trial court vacated the default was sufficient to constitute “for good cause shown.” Although there are no recent Arizona cases relating to the vacating of defaults prior to judgment, there are some cases involving the vacating of judgments entered after the default was entered: , ; , .
  • 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.
  • Damiano v. Damiano 321 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1958
  • Damiano v. Damiano 321 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1958
    Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc., , .
  • Eldridge v. Jagger 317 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1957
  • Eldridge v. Jagger 317 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1957