Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 146 P. 203.

88 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
(emphasis added) (quoting People v. Sturtevant, 9 N.Y.
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
(“The present action is a collateral attack on the judgment of the superior court foreclosing the lien; collateral at least in the sense that the judgment is attacked in a separate action, and not on appeal.
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
Co., (emphasis added), rendering it subject to “collateral attack,” Tube City Mining & –11 (1914).
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Razdan v. Razdan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(quoting Tube City Mining & ).
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
146 P. 203 (1914)), Arizona courts have noted the often imprecise use of the word “jurisdiction” to attack the legality of a judgment on' direct appeal.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
the 7 tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.’” quoting Tube City Mining & 146 P. 203, 206 (1914).
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Estes v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR MARICOPA 672 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1983
Co., , , Tube City Mining &amp
Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
’ ” -13 , 146 P. 203, 206 (1914).
State v. Surety Insurance Co. of California 625 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Surety Insurance Co. of California 625 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Tube City Mining & , 146 P. 203, 206 (1914).
Lamb v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 621 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & , 146 P. 203 (1914); see Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 606 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 606 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
It is not confined to cases in which the particular facts constitute a good cause of action, but it includes every issue within the scope of the general power vested in the court, by the law of its organization, to deal with the abstract question.” , 146 P. 203, 206 (1914).
Estate of Hash v. Henderson 507 P.2d 99 Ariz. 1973
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
& , 146 P. 203 (1915).
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
etc., , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303 (1914).
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen 402 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1965
Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen 402 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1965
Tube City Mining & , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303.
Bates v. Bates 400 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Bates v. Bates 400 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303 (1914)
Eyman v. Deutsch 373 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1962
Eyman v. Deutsch 373 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1962
146 P. 203 , *85 L.R.A.1916E, 303, goes into the matter •very fully and points out that when jurisdiction in this sense is considered, there are three things which must appear: (a) Jurisdiction of the person; (b) jurisdiction of the subject-matter; .and (c) jurisdiction of the court to render the particular kind of
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McCarrell 295 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1956
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McCarrell 295 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1956
Tube City Min., etc., , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303; 23 Cyc.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co. 265 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1954
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co. 265 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1954
Tube City Mining & , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303.
Duncan v. Truman 248 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
Duncan v. Truman 248 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1952
146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303.
Cox v. MacKenzie 219 P.2d 1048 Ariz. 1950
Cox v. MacKenzie 219 P.2d 1048 Ariz. 1950
203 P. 1085 ; Tube City Mining & , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.
Hunt v. Norton 198 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1948
Hunt v. Norton 198 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1948
True it is not expressly so stated in the Kenney decision, but counsel for the Commission confirm this view for they cite in support of their contention : “* * * But, as we held in Tube City Mining, etc., Co. v. Otterson, supra [ , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
146 P. 203, 206 , L.R.A.1916E, 303, this court said: “The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.