Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bateman v. McDonald, 385 P.2d 208.

72 citing documents.

Thomas v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thomas v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Hirsch v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., (noting an appeal from a default judgment is permissible when the default was not authorized by Rule 55 or when there are questions regarding personal jurisdiction); (denial of motion to set aside default judgment “is appealable as a ‘special order made after final judgment’”) (quoting A.R.S.
Randy Melbye v. Rocio Dennis 556 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Randy Melbye v. Rocio Dennis 556 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(holding, as matter of first impression, that order setting aside or refusing to vacate default judgment is appealable as special order made after final judgment); -76 (1987); Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., see also Ariz. R. Civ
Gateway v. Millennium Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Gateway v. Millennium Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
a. Rule 60(b)(1) and Motions to Set Aside Judgment and for a New Trial ¶21 When reviewing an appellant’s claim that “default judgment was taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, the general test is whether his conduct might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” -30 (1963).
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Waste Mgmt., Inc., , a l’uling on a motion to set aside a final default judgment, , and other post-judgment rulings relating to a final judgment, -27 , (“To be appealable, a post-judgment order must fulfill two requirements.
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Waste Mgmt., Inc., a ruling on a motion to set aside a final default judgment, and other post-judgment rulings relating to a final judgment, -27 (App. 1995) (“To be appealable, a post-judgment order must fulfill two requirements.
Choate v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Choate v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
In Re the Marriage of Worcester 960 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1998
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In re Victor P. 947 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
7 See, , , , Coconino Pulp & P.2d 550 (1957).
Sanders v. Cobble 744 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1987
Sanders v. Cobble 744 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1987
§ 12-2101; , Knight v. Mewszel, 3 Ariz.App.
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co. v. Century Capital Corp. 734 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Addison v. Cienega, Ltd. 705 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Apache East, Inc. v. Means 601 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Apache East, Inc. v. Means 601 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In Re Trull 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Moqui, Inc. v. Ambrose & Rosenfield & Co. 521 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Moqui, Inc. v. Ambrose & Rosenfield & Co. 521 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Phillips v. Findlay, 19 Ariz.App.
Trull v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Trull v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Dungan v. Superior Court, 20 Ariz.App.
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Globe Electric, Inc. 510 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Globe Electric, Inc. 510 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Justice Lockwood comments on the Overson case and stated that it dealt only with an order setting aside an entry of default, no judgment having been entered.
Phillips v. Findlay 507 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Phillips v. Findlay 507 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
Norman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 495 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1972
C 1 in other cases, , there is no reason to deny the right of appeal from a Rule 60(c) motion in probate cases.
Gibbons v. Badger Mutual Insurance Company 466 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Gibbons v. Badger Mutual Insurance Company 466 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
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
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Haenichen v. Worthington 449 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
A person is excusably neglectful when his conduct might be the act of a reasonably prudent *87 person under the same circumstances, , and we feel that the trial court could have been justified in finding that the conduct of the defendants met this test.
Hanen v. Willis 444 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Hanen v. Willis 444 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
§ 12-2101 A.R.S., , State ex rel.
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
to the test for granting relief, in the many decisions in this state pertaining to the setting aside of a default and default judgment, no distinction has ever been made which would suggest that the trial court has any discretion in separating the default from the default judg *592 ment on such a motion, i. e., , , , , , -432 , 234 P. 32 (1925)
Lawrence v. Burke 431 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Lawrence v. Burke 431 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In relation to setting aside a default judgment, , in reviewing the discretion of the trial judge, stated (Page 329, 385 P.2d page 210): “ * * * In this determination the court is guided by certain equitable principles.
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc. 426 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1967