Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Treadaway v. Meador, 436 P.2d 902.

36 citing documents.

Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 305 ( Birds Int’l ); (noting superior court “clearly abused its discretion in failing to set aside the judgment .
Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Followed Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., -24, -02 (1979)
Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(allowing the trial court to determine whether a party or lawyer is responsible for a discovery violation).
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, , Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , Birds Int’l
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
Nesmith v. Superior Court 790 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Nesmith v. Superior Court 790 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd. 772 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd. 772 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Robinson v. Higuera 760 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Robinson v. Higuera 760 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McKinley v. Town of Fredonia 680 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McKinley v. Town of Fredonia 680 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
The court then reiterated the well-established principle that “ ‘[ljitigation ought not be treated as a game but should be disposed of, where possible, upon its merits.’ ” 107 Ariz. at 513 , 489 P.2d at 852 ( , ).
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Zakroff, supra; , Foster v. Brooks, 7 Ariz.App.
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Under Rule 60(c), the neglect of their attorney is attributed to defendants, “and only when the attorney’s omission or failure to act is legally excusable may relief be obtained.”
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
101 , and cases cited therein; , cf. Hancock v. Arizona Central Credit Union, 24 Ariz.App.
Buchanan v. Jimenez 501 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Buchanan v. Jimenez 501 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
: “We do not think, however, that Rule 37(b) 2(iii), supra, where it is used as a sanction for failure to answer interrogatories, should, in the interest of justice, be so rigidly enforced.
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971
Walker v. Kendig 489 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1971
at 84 , at 903 (1968), “[litigation ought not be treated as a game but should be disposed of, where possible, upon its merits.” We have read the record and it is apparent to us that Chard acted as a reasonably prudent attorney under the circumstances.
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Zakroff v. May 443 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968