DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Overson v. Martin, 363 P.2d 604.

25 citing documents.

  • Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Comm’n, 90 Ariz. 9 DYNOMETRICS v. ADES/ENRIQUEZ Opinion of the Court 350, 355 (1962) (holding that in “both original and appellate determinations,” ADES must “actively .
  • Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Harper v. CANYON LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 200 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    In DeHoney , , for the proposition that Rule 55(c)’s good cause requirement "coincides with the standard governing the propriety of setting aside a default judgment under Rule 60(c),” 122 Ariz. at 371 , 595 P.2d at 163 , the supreme court concluded that the trial court properly set aside the entry of default b
  • Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
  • Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
    (reversing a trial court's setting aside a default judgment as an abuse of discretion when the *361 excuses presented were that the wife had been ill for two weeks of the one-month period during which the defendants failed to answer after becoming aware of service and the husband had been busy "g
  • DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
  • DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
  • 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
    On the other hand, many times “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” which is completely explainable, , is not excusable.
  • 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., , ; , ; Lynch *560 v. Arizona Enterprise Mining Co., , 179 P. 956 ; , 125 P.
  • Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Followed Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co. 451 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    In our view, the conduct advanced as a reason for setting aside this judgment is not, as a matter of law, “the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” , in holding that there was an abuse in discretion below in setting aside this default.
  • Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    However, this discretion is not unlimited and can be abused by the granting of a motion to set aside, , as well as by the denial of a motion to set aside.
  • Martin v. Burns 429 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1967
  • Martin v. Burns 429 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1967
    LOCKWOOD, Justice: This is an action by plaintiffs Martin, appellants here
  • 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.
  • Harris v. Howard P. Foley Co. 409 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Harris v. Howard P. Foley Co. 409 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    the fact that the order under consideration was not an appealable order was not called to the attention of the court nor did the participating judges recognize that fact until the issue was raised by a motion for rehearing filed by different attorneys.
  • 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
  • Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964