Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Coconino Pulp and Paper Company v. Marvin, 317 P.2d 550.

142 citing documents.

Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Baker International Associates, Inc. v. Shanwick International Corp. 851 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
• Shanwick argues that its situation is much like that in Coconino Pulp & , in which the court held that a calendaring problem within a law firm was sufficient to justify the setting aside of a default judgment.
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Coconino Pulp & , Wilshire Mtg.
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, e.g., United Imports and Exports, , Coconino Pulp &amp
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, , Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
136 Ariz. at 309 , 666 P.2d at 54
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
See generally Coconino Pulp &amp
City of Phoenix v. Geyler 697 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1985
City of Phoenix v. Geyler 697 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1985
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Marvin, , Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.
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
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rapton 680 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rapton 680 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The test for a finding of excusable neglect in Arizona is whether the neglect “is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent man under the circumstances.”
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Assuming mere coexistence, Harris' forgetfulness would not merit the setting aside of the default judgment because, as we stated in Coconino Pulp & , "[i]f a judgment is acquired because of a party's mere neglect, inadvertence or forgetfulness without any reasonable excuse therefor, the judgment will not be disturbed...."
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
That, in summary, failure of National Van Lines to file a timely answer was due to human oversight and excusable neglect, and that National Van Lines does, in fact, have a real, substantiable and meritorious defense to the plaintiff’s Complaint.” , this Court stated the following: “If a [default] judgment is acquired because of a party’s mere neglect, inadvertence or forgetfulness without any reasonable excuse therefor, the judgment will not be disturbed and the neglecting party must suffer the
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Union Oil Co. of California
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hawke v. Bell 663 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
urt indicating that judgment had been taken in the amount of $200,000.00 and at that point the file was in the file cabinet with the suit papers still in the file;” The thrust of the appellees’ position in the trial court was that the foregoing constituted excusable neglect under Rule 60(c)(1), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., 1
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
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
In Cocon-ino Pulp & , and in other cases, the most recent of which is Cook v. Industrial Commission, et al., , we acknowledged that clerical and secretarial errors which occur in a large law office are often unavoidable and are ordinarily excusable.
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
See Wilshire Mortgage Corp. v. Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc., , where the secretary neglected to enter a summons because she was called away from work by an illness and subsequent death in the family; and Cocon-ino Pulp & , where the secretary who was responsible for preparing calendar sheets for all the attorneys in the office failed to deliver a calendar to one attorney, who missed a deadline.
State v. Pope 635 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1981
State v. Pope 635 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1981
If through some inadvertent clerical error the lawyer is not informed, his conduct resulting therefrom we believe is excusable.” -21
Gendron v. Skyline Bel Air Estates 590 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gendron v. Skyline Bel Air Estates 590 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Andrew v. Industrial Commission 576 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Wilshire Mortgage Corp. v. Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc., , Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.
Moqui, Inc. v. Ambrose & Rosenfield & Co. 521 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Moqui, Inc. v. Ambrose & Rosenfield & Co. 521 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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
See e. g., , ; , ; Kohlbeck v. Handley, 3 Ariz.App.
Martin v. Rossi 501 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Martin v. Rossi 501 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Catalina Savings & Loan Ass'n 493 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Catalina Savings & Loan Ass'n 493 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
relied upon by both parties, the supporting affidavit affirmatively set forth the specific reason for the failure to answer.
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971