Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite King v. Uhlmann, 437 P.2d 928.

56 citing documents.

Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
Douglas Investment Co. v. Van Ness 468 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1970
this Court, in discussing indispensable parties, adopted the definition as set forth in 2 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 512 at pages 95 and 96, as follows: “ * * * The classic definition of indispensable parties by the Supreme Court is: ‘Persons who not only have an interest
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
L. M. White Contracting Co. v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. 466 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
and appellate courts do not interfere with the trial court’s determination as to the sufficiency of the evidence unless it can be said, as a matter of law, that no one could reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing.
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The test of indispensability therefore is whether the absent person’s interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.”