Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Ramirez, 409 P.2d 292.

30 citing documents.

Quigley v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Quigley v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
McA Financial Group, Ltd. v. Enterprise Bank & Trust 341 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See Safeway Stores, (“For the court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant .
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Cf. Safeway Stores, , (service was insufficient where defendant was never personally delivered a copy of summons and complaint, nor was a copy left at her dwelling and she had never seen a copy or obtained knowledge of the suit before judgment); Liberty Mut.
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Lane v. Elco Industries, Inc. 656 P.2d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lane v. Elco Industries, Inc. 656 P.2d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Safeway Stores, , Schering Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.3d 737 , 125 Cal.Rptr.
Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant designated under a fictitious name, it is essential that any party being served must clearly be given notice that he is being served as a defendant in the case, and is being served in place of a defendant designated under a fictitious name, and if the facts do not so show then the service is fatally defective.” Safeway Stores
Magidow v. Coronado Cattle Company 504 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Magidow v. Coronado Cattle Company 504 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
While it is true that, in order for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant designated under a fictitious name, the person being served must be' given notice that he is being served in place of a particular fictitious defendant named in the complaint, Safeway Stores, , it is not the mere allegations of the complaint but the actual facts of the case which must be considered' in determining jurisdiction.
American Motors Sales Corp. v. Superior Court 494 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
American Motors Sales Corp. v. Superior Court 494 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
Fridena v. Palmer 489 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
Stevenson v. Celaya 457 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Stevenson v. Celaya 457 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
The plaintiff contends that the court has no jurisdiction over a person designated as a fictitious defendant unless that person is served with process, Safeway Stores, , and since there was never any service on anyone but Celaya, the fictitious defendants are not to be considered as multiple parties involved in the action.
Del Castillo v. Harbour 445 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Del Castillo v. Harbour 445 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
We are also influenced in part by the fact that the service upon Mrs. Harbour is clearly void, see Safeway Stores, , and that the appearance of the defendants occurred before default judgment.
In re Minors 432 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In re Minors 432 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Schoolcraft 427 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Schoolcraft 427 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl 415 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
117 , (opinion on review at , [1965]).