Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Perez v. Tomberlin, 340 P.2d 982.

41 citing documents.

Novak v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Novak v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 56(e); –27 (1996) (conclusory affidavits “can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment”); Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 310; (“[I]f the party against whom a motion for a summary judgment is directed wants to stay in court he cannot withhold an appropriate showing until time of trial.”).
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp. 640 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
“[I]f the party against whom a motion for a summary judgment is directed wants to stay in court he cannot withhold an appropriate showing until time of trial.”
Feuchter A. v. Bazurto 528 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Feuchter A. v. Bazurto 528 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Blasdell v. J. G. Boswell Co. 513 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Blasdell v. J. G. Boswell Co. 513 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ong Hing v. Arizona Harness Raceway, Inc. 459 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Ong Hing v. Arizona Harness Raceway, Inc. 459 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Greater Ariz. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tang, , ; , ; , .” If plaintiff’s affidavit was legally insufficient, was the defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law?
Cordoba v. Wiswall 436 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Cordoba v. Wiswall 436 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc., supra.
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
Eastwood Electric Co. v. R. L. Branaman Contractor, Inc. 432 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
Greater Ariz. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tang, , ; , ; , .
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation 425 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
in considering a Rule 56 matter, the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “ * * * we held the mere general statement in a pleading, when attacked by such motion supported by proof of specific facts in the form of affidavits, etc., places on the author of the statement the obligation to present somethin
Carpenter v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1966
Carpenter v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1966
wherein we stated: “ , , for the general proposition that the opposing party must in all events contradict the affidavit of the moving party.
Dobson v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 421 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1966
Dobson v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 421 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1966
In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s affidavit is no more effective in raising a , .
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Luplow v. Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. 416 P.2d 414 Ariz. 1966
Chenowth v. Epperson 414 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Chenowth v. Epperson 414 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” It has been held that “summary judgment is mandatory under this rule [Rule 56(e)] where the party opposing the judgment does not file affidavits in opposition to affidavits filed by the moving party, * *
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n 407 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1965
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964
Defendants’ answer was a general denial, and when it was attacked by the motion supported by proof of specific facts in the form of affidavits and the other documents, it placed on defendants, “the obligation to present something which will show that when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support the allegations in the pleading.” , .
Lujan v. MacMurtrie 383 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1963
Lujan v. MacMurtrie 383 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1963
for the general proposition that the opposing party must in all events contradict the affidavit of the moving party.
Martinez v. Coombs 379 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1963
Martinez v. Coombs 379 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1963
If he does not so answer under oath, summary judgment shall be entered against him.” (Emphasis supplied) We have held that a summary judgment is mandatory under this rule where the party opposing the judgment does not file affidavits in opposition to affidavits filed by the moving party, , .
Colby v. Bank of Douglas 370 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1962
Colby v. Bank of Douglas 370 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1962
Sarti v. Udall 369 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1962
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
Maloy v. Taylor 346 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1959
and Arizona cases there cited.