Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 436 P.2d 891.

25 citing documents.

Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bys Inc. v. Smoudi 269 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
( , City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Eng’g, Inc., 12 Ariz.App.
National Investment Co. v. Estate of Bronner 704 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
National Investment Co. v. Estate of Bronner 704 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Tarr v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 690 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1984
Tarr v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 690 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1984
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County 690 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
510 , , neither of which involve the filing of an untimely answer after default has been entered.
Skates v. Stockton 683 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Skates v. Stockton 683 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Freeland v. Green 601 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Freeland v. Green 601 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The parties concede that the letters constituted an “appearance”
Gustafson v. McDade 548 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gustafson v. McDade 548 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc., , Austin v. State ex rel.
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The contention is based upon Rule 55(b)
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman 459 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
P.2d 891 (1968), the appearance was in the form of a letter by the employer-garnishee denying any indebtedness.
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Edgar v. Garrett 456 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Hay v. Duskin 455 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Appellee vigorously contests the rendition of this “default” judgment
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969