Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 409 P.2d 285.

66 citing documents.

State v. Coker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Coker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Titlemax v. Fornaris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Titlemax v. Fornaris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Proper service of process is essential for the court to obtain jurisdiction over a party,” and so a judgment against a defendant who was not properly served is “void.” (“If the court had no jurisdiction because 3 TITLEMAX v. FORNARIS Decision of the Court of lack of proper service on the defendant any judgment would be void.”).
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
¶24 “Regarding default judgments, the general rule is that if a court had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the defendant, any judgment would be void.” Wells v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“If the court had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the defendant any judgment would be void .
State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, (“What is a ‘reasonable time’ within which to make [a] motion must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.”); –87 (1982) (“The need for finality .
commonwealth/fidelity v. Centerpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
commonwealth/fidelity v. Centerpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶5 “What is a ‘reasonable time’ within which to make the motion must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.”
Tailwind v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Tailwind v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“What is a ‘reasonable time’ within which to make the motion must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.” (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.
National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
National Tax v. Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Indeed, a judgment entered without jurisdiction because of a lack of proper service is void, Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., (), and may be challenged via Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) at any time, “even if the party seeking relief delayed unreasonably,” (quoting Brooks v. Consol.
Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ruffino v. Lokosky 425 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(citing Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. , , ).
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Since the delay [in filing the motion for relief from judgment] is not explained, there is no basis on which the court could exercise its discretion to find it reasonable.”) ().
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“What is a ‘reasonable time’ within which to make the motion must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.”
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[T]he trial court should have determined the question of its jurisdiction before taking any other action.
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5860 818 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5860 818 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ineffective service of process would render the default judgment obtained on September 3,1980 void, -347 , -17 (1973); , thus, the question is whether service in this case was effective.
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
138, 140 , vacated on other grounds, , Thus, a proper showing of facts is “a prerequisite to the exercise” of the discretion given the trial court.
Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc. 625 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc. 625 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Kadota v. Hosogai 608 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Kadota v. Hosogai 608 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Roll v. Janca 527 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Roll v. Janca 527 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
and 3) An appellate court should be more loath to reverse an order vacating a default judgment than an order denying a motion.
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
Martin v. Rossi 501 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Martin v. Rossi 501 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Haenichen *216 v. Worthington, 9 Ariz.App.
Burdick v. University of Arizona 493 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Burdick v. University of Arizona 493 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Smith v. Monroe 488 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Smith v. Monroe 488 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hornback v. Industrial Commission 466 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The Supreme Court’s opinion is reported , .
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Walter v. Northern Arizona Title Co., 6 Ariz.App.
Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969