DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hoff v. City of Mesa, 344 P.2d 1013.

31 citing documents.

  • In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond 543 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2024
  • In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond 543 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2024
    iberally constru[e] our exemption laws so as to preserve the homestead.” Reeves, 27 Ariz. at 513; –42 (1898) (“It is the well-settled policy of the courts to liberally construe those humane and beneficial provisions of the law exempting certain property from execution for the payment of debts.”), (“[T]he homestead laws should be interpreted liberally to advance the objectives of the statutes.”); A.R.S.
  • Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Dowell v. Ross 657 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1982
  • Fuller v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 601 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Fuller v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 601 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    ing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein and also as to every point raised by the record which could have been decided, with respect to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ , at 1014 (1959).
  • Phillips v. Arizona Board of Regents 601 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1979
  • Phillips v. Arizona Board of Regents 601 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1979
    That interpretation of Rule 41(b) , , we said that Anguiano held that Rule 41(b) “applied to involuntary dismissals without regard to the reasons or causes resulting in such dismissals * It is appropriate to emphasize that Rule 41(b) does not require the trial court to dismiss with prejudice when the dismissal is based o
  • Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
  • El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
  • Navajo County v. Peabody Coal Co. 567 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Navajo County v. Peabody Coal Co. 567 P.2d 1230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein and also as to every point raised by the record which could have been decided with respect to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of *103 concurrent jurisdiction.”
  • Krasse v. Del E. Webb Development Corporation 549 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Krasse v. Del E. Webb Development Corporation 549 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Industrial Park Corp. v. U. S. I. F. Palo Verde Corp. 547 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    ing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein and also as to every point raised by the record which could have been decided, with respect to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” , at 1014 (1959).
  • Govan v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Govan v. Industrial Commission 532 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    the Court said: “Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein and also as to every point raised by the record which coul
  • Finger v. Beaman 480 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Finger v. Beaman 480 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Waller v. Industrial Commission 431 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Waller v. Industrial Commission 431 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    the Court said : “Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein and also as to every point raised by the record which cou
  • Porter v. Porter 403 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Porter v. Porter 403 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    Also: “Under the doctrine of res judicata an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fault or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein, and also as to every point raised by the record which could have been decided, with respect to the parties or their privies
  • Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963
  • Day v. Estate of Wiswall 381 P.2d 217 Ariz. 1963
    Under the doctrine of res judicata an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to every point decided therein, and also as to every point raised by the record which could have been decided, with respect to the parties or their privies
  • Reidy v. O'Malley Lumber Company 374 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1962
  • Reidy v. O'Malley Lumber Company 374 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1962
    Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corp.