Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Preston v. Denkins, 382 P.2d 686.
- Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson 599 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1979
- Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson 599 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1979
- Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
- Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
- Wells v. Valley National Bank of Arizona 509 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1973
-
Wells v. Valley National Bank of Arizona
509 P.2d 615
Ariz. 1973
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 99 * -220
- Cooper v. Commonwealth Title of Arizona 489 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- Cooper v. Commonwealth Title of Arizona 489 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Hogue
479 P.2d 417
Ariz. 1971
Jennings, at 5 , at 61 (1968) this Court stated that “[i]t is well understood that any plea which is involuntary is of course void.” Therefore, a judgment based on such involuntary plea would not sustain a conviction and, on motion, would have to be vacated; for it is a trial court’s “duty to expunge from the record a judgment which is clearly void.” at 224 , at 692 (1963).
- Llamas v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 474 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- Llamas v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 474 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- 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
set forth the rule that insofar as the nature of the issues is concerned, a motion to vacate a judgment on the grounds that it was entered without jurisdiction is analagous to an independent action in equity to have the offensive judgment set aside.
- Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co. 433 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
-
Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co.
433 P.2d 998
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Our Supreme Court has also stated: “It is not the allegation that the residence is unknown which confers jurisdiction upon service by publication but the existence of the jurisdictional fact that the residence is unknown.”
- Occidental Life Insurance Company of Cal. v. Marsh 423 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- Occidental Life Insurance Company of Cal. v. Marsh 423 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- Liston v. Butler 421 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
-
Liston v. Butler
421 P.2d 542
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
* * * The court not only had the power but the duty to expunge from the record the judgment which clearly is void.” 224
- Knight v. Mewszel 413 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
-
Knight v. Mewszel
413 P.2d 861
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
or that he conceals himself, (citations) Precedent to the right to have constructive service under this statute, the existence of certain facts must be shown, and hence the fact and mode of establishing it is jurisdictional.’ Regardless of whether' the affidavit must recite a showing of' due diligence, such diligence as a fact is prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the court.” at 222 , at 691 (1963).
- Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Han v. Horwitz 407 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez 400 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez 400 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965