Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schering Corporation v. Cotlow, 385 P.2d 234.

47 citing documents.

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
Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc. , , 321, , 910 (App. 1980) (citing Schering Corp. v. Cotlow , , ).
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Edwards v. Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Jackson, 210 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 14, 113 P.3d at 115 (stating a rule 60(c) motion should be denied if the moving party cannot satisfy all three prongs of the test); (“A condition precedent to the court considering a meritorious defense is a showing of excusable neglect.”).
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
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
(holding the client bound by its attorney’s neglect).
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
De Honey v. Hernandez, 122 Ariz. at 371, 595 P.2d at 163
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
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley, 14 Ariz.App.
Shemaitis v. Superior Court 560 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Shemaitis v. Superior Court 560 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Parag v. Walters, 11 Ariz.App.
American Motors Sales Corp. v. Superior Court 494 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
American Motors Sales Corp. v. Superior Court 494 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
117 , this court 1 , ,(1963) as to whether or not an employee is a “managing or general agent”: “[Wjhether ‘the agent is of such character and rank so that it is reasonably certain the defendant will receive actual notice of the service of process.’ ” 1 Ariz.App.
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley 482 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley 482 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
De Claire Mink Ranches v. Federal Foods, Inc., 192 F.Supp.
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
[ 17 A.L.R.3d 617 ] ; , ; , ; , ; Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc., , ; , 236 P.2
National Exhibition Company v. Marx 453 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
National Exhibition Company v. Marx 453 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
17 A.L.R.3d 617 (1963); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez, 1 Ariz.App.
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
Evans v. C & B DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 417 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Evans v. C & B DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 417 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 1 Ariz.App.
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Kohlbeck v. Handley 415 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
In Re Estate of McCauley 415 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of McCauley 415 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Husky v. Oaks 412 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
35 , , , Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District v. McDonald, 1 Ariz.App.
Mann v. Hennessey 409 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Prell v. Amado 406 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District v. McDonald (September 3, 1965) 1 Ariz.App.
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District v. McDonald 405 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District v. McDonald 405 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
“Whether a sufficient showing of excusable neglect has been made is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse thereof.”
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
our Supreme Court has adopted the test as to whether or not an employee is a “managing or general agent” as being whether “the agent is of such character and rank so that it is reasonably certain the defendant will receive actual notice of the service of process..” This store manager falls withi
Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
Overson v. Martin, 90 * P.2d.