Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rojas v. Kimble, 361 P.2d 403.

30 citing documents.

Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
At that time the statute merely provided for the exclusion “of interest and costs.” , the Arizona Supreme Court was faced with the issue whether the language of A.R.S.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Swichtenberg v. Brimer 828 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
our supreme court discussed the constraints on de novo review to the superior court from the justice court.
McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp. 652 P.2d 1377 Ariz. 1982
McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp. 652 P.2d 1377 Ariz. 1982
Berry v. Arizona State Land Department 651 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1982
Berry v. Arizona State Land Department 651 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1982
Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
Sweis v. Chatwin 585 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Sweis v. Chatwin 585 P.2d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Similarly, , the Arizona Supreme Court held that a recovery of attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of a promissory note could not be classified as costs for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional amount involved in a proceeding in a justice court.
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Section 43 — 177(f)(2) provides in part: “The superior court shall hear and determine the appeal as a trial de novo.” , : “We have repeatedly held that a trial de novo means a new trial ‘as though it *177 were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court.’ [ , 122 P.2d (215) 218].
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
However, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time, , and the parties cannot by consent give the court jurisdiction over subject matter which it would not otherwise have.
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
* * * ” 95 Arizat 190, 191, 388 P.2d at 239 : , , we said: “While a trial de novo means a new trial as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court, this does not mean that the superior court may treat the action as though it had actually been commenced therein in order to escape jurisdictional limitation imposed by the Constitut
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
our Supreme Court said: “While a trial de novo means a new trial as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court, this does not mean that the superior court may treat the action as though it had actually been commenced therein in order to escape jurisdictional limitation imp
Horne v. Superior Court 361 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1961
Horne v. Superior Court 361 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1961
See Rojas v. Kimble, 89 Ariz.-, .