Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lujan v. MacMurtrie, 383 P.2d 187.

92 citing documents.

Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Viewing the evidence most favorably to the person against whom the summary judgment was granted, , , we find the following facts necessary for a determination of this.matter on appeal.
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
Gaethje v. Gaethje 441 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
599 , , and com *551 pare Reidy v. Almich, 4 Ariz.App.
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
But, , ; in quoting from a previous case, , : “ * * * if the papers of the moving party fail to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party need not file an opposing affidavit.
State v. Crawford 441 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Crawford 441 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Flynn v. Lindenfield, 6 Ariz.App.
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Flynn Ex Rel. Eicke v. Lindenfield 433 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Ainsa v. Salt River Valley Water Users Ass'n 432 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
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
If he does not so answer under oath, summary judgment shall be entered against him.” , , we said: “ While we stress here the burden of the moving party, the court will not normally look with indulgence upon a party who has presented neither evidentiary materials in opposition nor any reason for his failure to do so.
Harmon v. Szrama 429 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
Harmon v. Szrama 429 P.2d 662 Ariz. 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
Knight v. DeMarcus 425 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1967
Knight v. DeMarcus 425 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1967
Because plaintiff’s deposition and affidavits presented a prima facie case for quiet title (infra), , , and because defendants Nesbitt and Barnd failed to answer with opposing affidavits, we conclude that summary judgment was properly entered against them.
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
we stated: “The moving party for a summary judgment has the burden to ‘ * * * show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ Ride 56(c) Rules of Civil Procedure.
State v. Ashton Company 422 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Ashton Company 422 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
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.
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
One is the case of Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., , , which holds that trial judges should exercise great care in the granting of summary judgments.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance 420 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Tucson Title Insurance 420 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1966
Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tang
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
SCOTTSDALE DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. Dodson 417 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
SCOTTSDALE DISCOUNT CORPORATION v. Dodson 417 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
ued in the Martinez casé and as applicable to this issue before us was addition of the words “if appropriate’’ to the last sentence providing that if no response to a motion for summary judgment is made, summary judgment “shall be entered against him.” *319 In the later case of Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Tang, , , the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “ * * * it does not always follow that the mere failure of the opposing party to file controverting affidavits to a motion for summary
Goetz v. Phillips 409 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Goetz v. Phillips 409 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
and summary judgment should not be granted if, upon an examination of the entire record, it is determined that there is a disputed fact which, if true, could af.fect the final judgment.
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964
Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company 395 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1964

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by