Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cochise Hotels, Inc. v. Douglas Hotel Operating Co., 316 P.2d 290.

28 citing documents.

Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
In Cochise Hotels, for example, this Court cited DeGraff for the principle that a dismissal with prejudice is a “final determination” that “has the same effect as an adjudication on the merits of the case.” Id.
Marceaux v. Tiffany & Bosco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Marceaux v. Tiffany & Bosco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 41(b) (dismissal with prejudice “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Cochise Hotels, -48 (1957) (stating that dismissal of complaint with prejudice in previous action is res judicata on all issues raised or that could have been determined).
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tash v. Saunders 736 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
We find the two cases cited by appellants, , , to be inapplicable to this case since they involved subject matter jurisdiction.
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson 716 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1986
Id., comment e. A judgment entered by stipulation is called a consent judgment, , and may be conclusive, with respect to one or more issues, if the parties have entered an agreement manifesting such intention.
Bill by and Through Bill v. Gossett 647 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Bill by and Through Bill v. Gossett 647 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cochise Hotels, Inc. v. Douglas Hotel Operating Co., Inc.
Roosen v. Schaffer 621 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Roosen v. Schaffer 621 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Schuldes v. Wubbolding, 15 Ariz.App.
City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enterprises, Inc. 626 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enterprises, Inc. 626 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 507 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin 420 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1966
§ 44-585 provides that “a check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand.” ■ Interest on a debt payable on demand runs ■ from the time of demand, and not before., , ; Palmcroft Development.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
The question of whether the dismissal with prejudice of Otis in the original action, (which was an adjudication on the merits as to all facts pleaded by the plaintiff, , Cochise Hotels, , ) amounted to a determination of no negligence on the part of Otis and was res judicata in the Bank’s action against Otis, becomes a moot point.
Suttle v. Seely 382 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1963
Suttle v. Seely 382 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1963
Adams v. Bear 350 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1960
Adams v. Bear 350 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1960
ettled law in this jurisdiction as pronounced in Biaett v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., , *293 , 22 A.L.R.2d 615 , that a claim which is a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a), supra, is waived and thereafter is barred if not pleaded as a counterclaim; , ; , , nevertheless, in the instant action we hold that the claim of Bear having been admitted by the verified complaint it was not necessary to plead the same as a counterclaim and that Rule 13 (a), supra, is not applicable.
Adams v. Bear 349 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1960
Adams v. Bear 349 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1960