Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hendrie Buick Company v. MacK, 355 P.2d 892.

42 citing documents.

Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co., supra
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 Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co., supra, , the affidavits were held sufficient because they set forth facts which, if proved at the trial, would constitute a meritorious defense.
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
De Honey v. Hernandez, 122 Ariz. at 371, 595 P.2d at 163
Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
Clark v. Clark 603 P.2d 506 Ariz. 1979
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
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
rule 60(b).” Federal Rule 60(b) reads, in part: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment * * * for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect * * * or (6) any other reason justifying relief These rules must be read in the light of our holdings, , , that “* * * in order for a default to be set aside, the party in default must show (1) that his failure to answer within the time
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
State v. Horn 449 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Horn 449 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Even though a party should be given a reasonable opportunity to litigate his defense on the merits, , when he knowingly failed to appear for trial he abandoned this opportunity and if he later decides to defend he has the burden of convincing the court that he should be granted the relief sought.
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
state pertaining to the setting aside of a default and default judgment, no distinction has ever been made which would suggest that the trial court has any discretion in separating the default from the default judg *592 ment on such a motion, i. e., , , , , , -432 , 234 P. 32 (1925)
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967
6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 55.10 [1]; , ; , .
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
It is sufficient if it shows upon its face, with all the material facts set forth therein deemed admitted, that there is a substantial defense to the action.” at 252 , at 894 (1960).
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
35 , , , Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District v. McDonald, 1 Ariz.App.
Mann v. Hennessey 409 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Mann v. Hennessey 409 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
6 Moore’s Federal Practice, #55.10 [1]; , ” In this case on January 26, 1962, shortly after the service of summons, plaintiffs’ attorney wrote the insurance adjuster this letter: “Gentlemen: Please be advised that in accordance with our telephone conversation, you need not turn this file over to an attorney until you have received notice
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 409 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 409 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1965
6 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 55.-10[1]
Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District v. McDonald (September 3, 1965) 1 Ariz.App.
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District v. McDonald 405 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District v. McDonald 405 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Wilshire Mortgage Corp. v. Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc. 397 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1964
Wilshire Mortgage Corp. v. Elmer Shelton Concrete Contractor, Inc. 397 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1964
: “Plaintiff’s claim that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to permit defendant to file an amended motion and affidavit, because the original motion and affidavit were defective, is totally without merit.
Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963
Bateman v. McDonald 385 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1963
Bateman v. McDonald 385 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1963
Schering Corporation v. Cotlow 385 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1963