Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen, 402 P.2d 22.

55 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
263, 269 (1853)); see also Sil– (“Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts in any case relating to this question, and to determine whether or not 17 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF QUIJADA AND DOMINGUEZ Justice Mont
Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
It is not synonymous with a "court's inability to enter a valid judgment," ¶ 42 (App. 2016), but rather is "the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts in any case relating to this question, and to determine whether or not they are sufficient to invoke the exercise of that power," (quoting Foltz v. St.
Olesen v. daniel/burge 484 P.3d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Olesen v. daniel/burge 484 P.3d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶12 Venue “is a privilege which permits one in whose favor it runs to have a case tried at a convenient place[;] it is personal and unless asserted may be waived.” Rohan Mgmt., ¶ 11 (App. 2019) (alteration in original) ().
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen 436 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sil-Flo Corp. v. Bowen , , 82
Butler Law v. Hon. higgins/winslow Memorial 410 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2018
Butler Law v. Hon. higgins/winslow Memorial 410 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2018
Venue is based on convenience in choosing the site for litigation, see, whereas the alter-ego doctrine attempts to prevent “fraud,” “misuse,” and “injustice” arising from misuse of the corporate form of organization, see NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC Commc’ns, LLC, 537 F.3d 168, 176–77 (2d Cir. 2008).
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Three types of jurisdiction exist: "[sjubject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction to render a particular judgment.” , 72 n. 2, ¶ 9, , 1199 n. 2 (App.2006) ( , ).
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack 282 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See, e.g., Keddie, 132 Ariz. at 553, 647 P.2d at 1151; James R. Brathovde Family Trust, 187 Ariz. at 321-22, 928 P.2d at 1250-51.
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“Venue is a privilege which permits one in whose favor it runs to have a case tried at a convenient place[;] it is personal and unless asserted may be waived.”
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Fry v. Garcia 138 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
a single superior court in the State of Arizona composed of all of the judges in every county.”) ( , ).
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re Approximately $50,000.00 in United States Currency 2 P.3d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In pointing out the difference between jurisdiction and venue, our supreme court has said that “[jjurisdiction is the power to decide a case on its merits whereas venue relates to the place where the suit may be heard.” , (citations omitted).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258 788 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258 788 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-82 , quoting from Foltz v. St.
Yuma County v. Keddie 647 P.2d 1150 Ariz. 1982
Yuma County v. Keddie 647 P.2d 1150 Ariz. 1982
Belcher v. Raines 636 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Belcher v. Raines 636 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley 481 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley 481 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Brown v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz.App.
Yavapai County v. Superior Court 476 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Yavapai County v. Superior Court 476 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
Smitherman v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Smitherman v. Superior Court 424 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Goff v. Superior Courts, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
as follows: “In the Ward case, supra, jurisdiction of the subject matter was never questioned.
Massengill v. Superior Court 416 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Massengill v. Superior Court 416 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966