Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wakeham v. Omega Construction Company, 395 P.2d 613.

34 citing documents.

Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Taylor v. Mueller 539 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Kreiss v. Shipp 481 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kreiss v. Shipp 481 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See, , Siegal v. Haver, 4 Ariz.App.
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berry v. Robotka 453 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-615 (1964); and see Dehaan v. Brandeis University, 150 F.Supp.
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
§ 25-211, Subsection B, gives the husband control over the personalty of the community “during coverture.”
Kiser v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 449 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kiser v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 449 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
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
Plaintiff takes the position that she established a prima facie case entitling her to recovery, and that since the State failed to show the existence of facts negativing her claim
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
f and Transamerica Title Insurance Company, Trustee.” • • Appellant contends in its brief that “there was nothing to controvert, and therefore, no controverting affidavit was .necessary.” Although our Supreme Court has stated that the 1963 amendment to Rule 56 (e) did not change the meaning of the rule but merely clarified what had always been their purpose, , we feel that by adding the words “if appropriate” in the last line of Rule 56(e) makes it clear that where a party fails to controvert an
Harmon v. Szrama 429 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
Harmon v. Szrama 429 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
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
7-G Ranching Company v. Stites 419 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
7-G Ranching Company v. Stites 419 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Klahr v. Winterble 418 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Klahr v. Winterble 418 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc. 417 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Patton v. Paradise Hills Shopping Center, Inc. 417 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
the court had under consideration a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
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
Nyberg v. Salt River Project Agricultural I. & P. Dist.