Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 413 P.2d 732.

69 citing documents.

Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶61 Because “this is a case of first impression,” however, and because it would be unfair to have expected the parties or the trial court to have anticipated the standard we adopt today, “we think justice will be best served by allowing the parties the opportunity of presenting any additional evidence relevant to [this] issue.” see also Swick v. Liautaud, 662 N.E.2d 1238, 1243 (Ill.
Monroe v. Wood 724 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Monroe v. Wood 724 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Approximately 20 years after the Western Coal case, , held that terms ‘without the state’ and ‘absent’ as used in A.R.S.
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hosogai v. Kadota 700 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
our Supreme Court rejected such a narrow interpretation, holding that in order for a party to be “without the state” or “absent” within the meaning of the statute, such party must be out of the state in the sense that he could not be served with process.
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. v. Concrete Pumping, Inc. 639 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc. v. Concrete Pumping, Inc. 639 P.2d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)
Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1980
Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1980
we held that at least minimum contacts must be established before we could fairly exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
The question before us is what effect that case has on the criteria for personal jurisdiction over a
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 604 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Rhoads v. Harvey Publications, Inc. 604 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Arizona has adopted the “minimum contacts”
Coshatt v. Calmac Manufacturing Corp. 602 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Coshatt v. Calmac Manufacturing Corp. 602 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
for what the court should take into consideration in determining whether it is fair to exercise jurisdiction.
Chavez v. State of Indiana for Logansport State Hospital 596 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1979
Chavez v. State of Indiana for Logansport State Hospital 596 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1979
Manufacturers' Lease Plans, Inc. v. Alverson Draughon College 565 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
Manufacturers' Lease Plans, Inc. v. Alverson Draughon College 565 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc.
Properties Investment Enterprises, Ltd. v. Foundation for Airborne Relief, Inc. 563 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Properties Investment Enterprises, Ltd. v. Foundation for Airborne Relief, Inc. 563 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc. 557 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1976
Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc. 557 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1976
Rule 4(e) (2), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., enables Arizona courts to acquire personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has “caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose.” As ¡ , -1966 ): “The choice of the general language quoted above is intended to give Arizona residents the maximum privileges permitted by the Constitution of the United States.” See also, State Bar Committee note following Rule 4(e) (1).
Nickerson v. Nickerson 542 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Nickerson v. Nickerson 542 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the court stated that the choice of general language of the Rule was intended to give Arizona residents the maximum privileges permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation 542 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1975
Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation 542 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1975
In addition, due process requires “that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra
Engle Bros. v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 533 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Engle Bros. v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 533 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co., 13 Ariz.App.
Lycoming Division of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court 524 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Lycoming Division of Avco Corp. v. Superior Court 524 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc., 20 Ariz.App.
Selby v. Karman 521 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1974
Selby v. Karman 521 P.2d 609 Ariz. 1974
Approximately 20 years after the Western Coal case, , held that terms “without the state” and “absent” as used in A.R.S.
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 514 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 514 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pegler v. Sullivan, 6 Ariz.App.
Denn v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation 508 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Denn v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation 508 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
1 , ; State Bar Committee Note following Rule 4(e)(1).
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
This activity comes well within Rule 4(e) (2) and in our opinion is even a , or Pegler v. Sullivan, 6 Ariz.App.
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
Pegler v. Sullivan, supra ; Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, supra.
Deere & Company v. Superior Court for Pima County 503 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Deere & Company v. Superior Court for Pima County 503 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Phillips v. Anchor Hocking *495 Glass Corp.
Molybdenum Corp. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF PIMA 498 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Molybdenum Corp. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF PIMA 498 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Tarnoff v. Jones 497 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tarnoff v. Jones 497 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona MacHinery Co. 486 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1971
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona MacHinery Co. 486 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1971
460 , [1967] , [1966]), the rule in Arizona is that there must be personal service within the State to support in personam jurisdiction and judgment: “In the landmark case of Pennoyer v. Neff [ 5 Otto 714 ], 95 U.S. 714 , 24 L.Ed.