Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bolin v. Superior Court, 333 P.2d 295.

48 citing documents.

Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
ng a new constitutional provision will, after acquiescence in this interpretation by the interested parties for a period of years, be highly persuasive as the correct interpretation”); 214 P. 319, 321 (1923) (when language ambiguous courts may consider “meaning previously given it by co-ordinate branches of the government”); (“We realize that the construction placed upon the Constitution by administrative officers of the state is not binding, but certainly such construction should be considered
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
P.2d 295 (1958) (court may take judicial notice of records of secretary of state).
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
zona, , (‘“The test of indispensability therefore is whether the absent person’s interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.’ ”) ( , ).
Mathieu v. Mahoney 851 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1993
Mathieu v. Mahoney 851 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ingram v. Shumway 794 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1990
Ingram v. Shumway 794 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1990
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The test of indispensability therefore is whether the absent person’s interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.’ (quoting Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol.
Londen v. Shumway 762 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
Londen v. Shumway 762 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
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
can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.” -35 , (quoting Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 512 (1961)).
Pioneer National Trust Co. v. Pioneer National Trust Co. 566 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pioneer National Trust Co. v. Pioneer National Trust Co. 566 P.2d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
the Arizona Supreme Court set forth the following test for indispensable parties: “ ‘.
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
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
the Arizona Supreme Court approved and quoted the test for indispensable parties set out in Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, as follows: ( 85 Ariz. at 134, 135 , 333 P.2d at 297 ) “ * * * Indispensable parties are those who have such an interest in the subject matter that a f
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
King v. Uhlmann 437 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1968
this court made the following statements, quoting from Barron & Holtzhoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol.
State v. Gunther & Shirley Company 423 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Gunther & Shirley Company 423 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Board of Super. of Maricopa County v. Superior Court, in and for County of Maricopa 417 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Board of Super. of Maricopa County v. Superior Court, in and for County of Maricopa 417 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Ronan v. First National Bank of Arizona 367 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1962
Ronan v. First National Bank of Arizona 367 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1962
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
This 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 ( , ; , ).
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Smoker v. Bolin 333 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1958
Smoker v. Bolin 333 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1958
There were two vacancies on the corporation commission to be filled at the primary election on September 9, 1958; one for a two-year period to finish the unexpired term of the late Mit Sims ( , ) ; and the other for the regular six-year term.