Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Siler v. Superior Court, 316 P.2d 296.

34 citing documents.

Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(holding that the plaintiff, who was the party appealing the denial of a liquor license transfer to the superior court, was required to serve the registered owner of the license as a necessary party); see also Hubert v. Bd.
Yano v. Yano 697 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Yano v. Yano 697 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Ivancovich v. Meier 595 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1979
Miller v. Craig 558 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Miller v. Craig 558 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
A reading of Rule 19(a), supra, in conjunction with the facts of this case and the appropriate decisions of the Supreme Court of Arizona, e. g., , , , make it clear that Craig was not an indispensable party to the initial litigation between the Millers and Crouse.
Babo v. Bookbinder Financial Corporation 551 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Babo v. Bookbinder Financial Corporation 551 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
” In the case at bench, appellants’ absence posed no impediment to final adjudication of the quiet title action.
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt, 8 Ariz.App.
Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Riley v. County of Cochise 455 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Riley v. County of Cochise 455 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
(an opinion, interestingly, authored by the same J. Mercer Johnson who was denied intervention in this action).
Morris v. Southwest Savings and Loan Association 449 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morris v. Southwest Savings and Loan Association 449 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
as authority for the proposition that a judgment rendered in the absence of an indispensable party is void.
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
and see Gorsuch v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 360 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1966).
Black v. Siler 392 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1964
Black v. Siler 392 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1964
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
his rule has been applied and prohibition has issued where the lower court erred in refusing to dismiss an appeal which the appellant did not have a right to institute before such court ( , ), and where indispensable parties were not properly before the lower court ( , ; , ).
Bolin v. Superior Court 333 P.2d 295 Ariz. 1958
Bolin v. Superior Court 333 P.2d 295 Ariz. 1958
This court, , 316 P.2d .296, approved the test for indispensable parties set out in Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol.
Kalastro v. Superior Court 320 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1958
Kalastro v. Superior Court 320 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1958