Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eldridge v. Jagger, 317 P.2d 942.

53 citing documents.

Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Peters v. M & O Construction, Inc. 579 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Peters v. M & O Construction, Inc. 579 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Wright v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 569 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1977
Wright v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 569 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1977
Modla v. Parker, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
.” We must follow the rule that “an application to open, vacate or set aside a judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its action will not be disturbed by this court except for a clear abuse of discretion.”
Modla v. Parker 495 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Modla v. Parker 495 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rule 60(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Mayhew v. McDougall 491 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Mayhew v. McDougall 491 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
“We have repeatedly held an application to open, vacate or set aside a judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its action will not be disturbed by this court except for a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
[Emphasis added] at 340 , at 623 (1970); , State v. Horn, 9 Ariz.App.
Phoenix Airport Travelodge v. Dolgin 470 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Phoenix Airport Travelodge v. Dolgin 470 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
In Re Estate of Cohen 464 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1970
Morgan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. 463 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morgan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. 463 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Haenichen v. Worthington, 9 Ariz.App.
Goldbaum v. Bloomfield Building Industries, Inc. 459 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Goldbaum v. Bloomfield Building Industries, Inc. 459 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
.” In our review of the facts, heretofore, we find that there is conflict in the evidence as to what the parties thought a “ten per cent participation agreement” consisted of, and that there is reasonable evidence in the record to support the trial court’s fi
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tri-State Insurance Company v. Maxwell 457 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1969
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Occidental Life Insurance Company of Cal.
Tri-State Insurance Company v. Maxwell 457 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1969
.” Of course there are situations where we will not accept the findings of the trier of fact, such as where the record contains no evidence to support such findings, , , or where a detailed examination of the eviden
Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Occidental Life Insurance Company of Cal. v. Marsh 423 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Occidental Life Insurance Company of Cal. v. Marsh 423 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Tonelson v. Haines, 2 Ariz.App.
Riggs v. HUACHUCA INVESTMENT COMPANY 410 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Riggs v. HUACHUCA INVESTMENT COMPANY 410 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Prell v. Amado, 2 Ariz.App.
Tonelson v. Haines 406 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Tonelson v. Haines 406 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
our Supreme Court said: “It is a well-established rule of law that the return of service of process can be impeached only by clear and convincing evidence.” , .
Nordale v. Fisher 380 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1963
Nordale v. Fisher 380 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1963
Daru v. Martin, supra; *347 ; , .
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
Gonzales v. Whitney 367 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1961
Setting aside a default judgment is within the sound legal discretion of the court, , , and is favored so that the party may have an opportunity to litigate his defense on the merits.
Patzman v. Marshall 363 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1961
Patzman v. Marshall 363 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1961
Daru v. Martin, 89 Ariz. -, 363 P.2d.
Daru v. Martin 363 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1961
Daru v. Martin 363 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1961
Phelan v. Hightower 360 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1961
Phelan v. Hightower 360 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1961
Arizona Securities, Inc. v. Keene 360 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1961
Arizona Securities, Inc. v. Keene 360 P.2d 221 Ariz. 1961
944: “ * * * We have repeatedly held an application to open, vacate or set aside a judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its action will not be disturbed by this court except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Lincoln-Mercury-Phoenix, Inc. v. Base 322 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1958