Cited by

¶17 Because we have an independent obligation to examine our jurisdiction and that of the court below, – 53 (1967), we start by briefly discussing Parra’s claims.

( (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting)).

This inquiry is consistent with the anti- abrogation clause’s language, which does not limit itself to protecting specific “causes of action” but rather protects “the right of action.” Because a right of action is “merely the right to pursue a remedy,” (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Standard Oil Co., 21 F. Supp. 645, 660 (S.D.

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 118 (1998)

¶10 “[A] court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 118 (1998); see also Todd v. Todd, 137

See Bonner v. Minico, Inc., P.2d 598 (1988); P.2d 647 (1967); State ex rel.

To resolve this question, the court allowed the parties to conduct additional discovery, file supplemental memoranda, and orally argue whether Ford’s actions constituted “wilful misconduct.” , , cert.

the Arizona Supreme Court held that where the issue of workmen’s compensation coverage has been raised in a negligence action against an employer, the trial court must determine whether or not it has jurisdiction of the action before proceeding to trial.

Prior to the jury trial, the trial' court tried this issue without a , and determined that Mrs. Roer was not an employee.

The respondent Berry contends that Ream was incorrectly decided

This prior decision is Morgan v. Hays and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., , cert.

Taylor v. Hubbell, 188 F.2d 106 (9 Cir. 1951); , cert.