Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Grobe v. McBryde, 468 P.2d 936.

36 citing documents.

Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin 460 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2020
Steven Sholem v. Hons. gass/contes/melissa Langevin 460 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2020
Rather, a plaintiff could move to extend the time for service for “cause shown.” (holding that the time for service under Rule 6(f) may be extended for good cause).
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See, -81, -40 (1970) (change of attorney did not constitute good cause where plaintiffs had claimed they were diligently pursuing discovery and where dismissal would bar their claims because of statute of limitations); (no g
McKinley v. Bethel 708 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
McKinley v. Bethel 708 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Air Power, Inc. v. Superior Court 690 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Air Power, Inc. v. Superior Court 690 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cook v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 658 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1983
Cook v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 658 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1983
where we said: “Under Rule 10(f), defendants may be designated by fictitious names only so long as the plaintiff does not know the true names.
Gonzalez v. Tidelands Motor Hotel Co. 598 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gonzalez v. Tidelands Motor Hotel Co. 598 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Van Campen v. Upjohn Company, 19 Ariz.App.
Mission Insurance v. Nethers 581 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Mission Insurance v. Nethers 581 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Snow v. Steele 588 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1978
Snow v. Steele 588 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1978
However, , where we said: “Rule 6(f) is not self-executing, and the trial court may, where good cause is shown, extend the time within which a defendant may be served.
Gittner-Louviere Engineering, Inc. v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Gittner-Louviere Engineering, Inc. v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Rule 6(f) states: “An action shall abate if the summons is not issued and served, or the service by publication commenced within one year from the filing of the complaint.” , in which our Supreme Court stated: “Under Rule 10(f) defendants may be designated by fictitious names only so long as the plaintiff does not know the true names, [citation omitted] Here the plaintiffs knew the identity .
Riley v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 567 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Riley v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 567 P.2d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Since review by *90 special action is appropriate in such instances, , we assume jurisdiction.
Gould v. Tibshraeny 517 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Gould v. Tibshraeny 517 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Van Campen v. Upjohn Company 504 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Van Campen v. Upjohn Company 504 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Taylor v. Superior Court, supra.
State v. Superior Court 486 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Superior Court 486 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Taylor v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 13 Ariz.App.
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Compare Dollar A Day Rent A Car Systems
Johnson v. Superior Court 483 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Superior Court 483 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to review a trial court order which denied a motion to dismiss.
Drug, Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Service, Inc. v. McFate 480 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Drug, Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Service, Inc. v. McFate 480 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Taylor v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 474 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Taylor v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 474 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The principles enunciated in Gideon predicate the rule we adopt herein, and, in our opinion

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by