Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allen v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 344 P.2d 163.

26 citing documents.

Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“[T]he pendency of a prior action between the same parties for the same cause in a state court of competent jurisdiction gives grounds for the abatement of a subsequent action.”
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ct. of Maricopa Cnty., (citation omitted).
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross & Co. 920 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross & Co. 920 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Curtis v. Morris 909 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Sierra v. Perry 590 P.2d 1383 Ariz. 1979
Sierra v. Perry 590 P.2d 1383 Ariz. 1979
that in such a case as this the first county to assume jurisdiction retains it, and the later action abates.
Beard v. Greer 570 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Beard v. Greer 570 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In our opinion this result is required by the Arizona Supreme Court’s
Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Warren v. Meyers Ex Rel. Judge 516 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In our opinion this result is required by the Arizona Supreme Court’s
Reed v. Frey 458 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Reed v. Frey 458 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
170 P. 280, 281, 282 (1918); 1 Am.Jur.2d Abatement, Survival, and Revival § 38, p. 77.
Arizona Osteopathic Medical Ass'n v. Fridena 457 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona Osteopathic Medical Ass'n v. Fridena 457 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
These decisions, and many others, establish that when there are two actions pending between the same parties as to the same cause of action, in the same jurisdiction, on proper motion, the second action should be abated
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
As to the former, no defect in jurisdiction is found unless “ * * * the two actions present a substantial identity as to parties, subject matter, issues involved, and relief demanded.” , also see 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts §§ 128, 129, pp. 481-489, and 21 C.J.S.