Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nelson v. Nelson, 370 P.2d 952.

51 citing documents.

Bybee v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Rizgala v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–18 (1962) (legal questions not squarely addressed by precedent are debatable).
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Swenson v. Swenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Swenson v. Swenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
When an opening brief raises “debatable” issues and no good cause is shown for the appellee’s failure to respond, “we assume the [appellee] confesses error.” –21 (1927)
Thomas-Hoffman v. Hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Thomas-Hoffman v. Hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Burgess v. Barari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Burgess v. Barari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Whalen v. Whalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Whalen v. Whalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sedillo v. Cooley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sedillo v. Cooley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
When there was “at least grave doubt” about the superior court’s order, the court also found a debatable question, and our courts have found debatable issues when an appeal raised novel legal questions, see
Luna v. Peinado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Luna v. Peinado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
("[W]e take the appellee's failure to file answering briefs to be a confession of reversible error in the trial court .
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tempe v. Graystar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶26 When a “claim is reduced to judgment, the original claim is merged in the judgment, and the judgment becomes a new debt.”
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
First Financial v. Claassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
GAF Corp. v. Diamond Carpet Corp. 572 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
GAF Corp. v. Diamond Carpet Corp. 572 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Superior Court 486 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Superior Court 486 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lothman v. Lothman, 11 Ariz.App.
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan 474 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan 474 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service 473 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service 473 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 473 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 473 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Van Polen v. Van Polen 436 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Van Polen v. Van Polen 436 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
our Supreme Court held that an appellee’s failure to file a brief would constitute a confession of reversible error if the issue raised by the appellant as error is “debatable.” The issue of the child’s name was not raised in the pleadings in the lower court.
City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. 433 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. 433 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Phoenix v. Schooley 424 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Phoenix v. Schooley 424 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Our Supreme Court has stated that: “ * * * [W]here debatable issues were raised by the appeal, we will assume failure to file an answering brief is a confession on the part of the appellees of reversible error.”
Jacobs v. Jacobs 415 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tiller v. Tiller 402 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1965
Tiller v. Tiller 402 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1965
Wilson v. Wilson 385 P.2d 226 Ariz. 1963
Wilson v. Wilson 385 P.2d 226 Ariz. 1963
We have recently held that: “ * * * where debatable issues were raised by the appeal, we will assume failure to file an answering brief is a confession on the part of the appellees of reversible error.” , .
Siemers v. Randall 383 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1963
Siemers v. Randall 383 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1963
We have recently held that: “ * * * where debatable issues were raised by the appeal, we will assume failure to file an answering brief is a confession on the part of the appellees of reversible error.” Nelson v. Nelson, *303 , .
Barrett v. Hiney 382 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1963
Barrett v. Hiney 382 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1963
Tom v. Baca, 93, Ariz. 96, .
Tom v. Baca 378 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1963