Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hook v. Hoffman, 147 P. 722.

35 citing documents.

Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶14 Next, citing the principle that all property must have a “situs” for purposes of determining jurisdiction, Red Cityscape argues that the Firm’s principal place of business and location for its accounting department—the Premises—most logically qualifies as the situs for its accounts receivable.
West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Indeed, a lis pen-dens has been held improperly filed in an action on a note, Mammoth Cave Production Credit Ass’n v. Gross, supra, to impose a constructive trust on shares of stock, , 147 P. 722 (1915), or to recover a real estate commission.
Tucson Estates, Inc. v. Superior Court 729 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Tucson Estates, Inc. v. Superior Court 729 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
63 , or for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, , it has been held to be improperly filed in an action on a note, Mammoth Cave Production Credit Ass’n v. Gross, , or to impose a constructive trust on shares of stock, , 147 P. 722 (1915), or to recover a real estate commission
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
First Nat’l Bank & , , 147 P. 722 (1915).
Jeffries v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 489 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Jeffries v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 489 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
147 P. 722 (1915), held that a stock certificate is not the stock itself but is simply written evidence of the ownership of stock.
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
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Mims v. Valley National Bank 481 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Restatement of Judgments, Introductory Note, (1942) ; , 147 P. 722, 727 (1915) (“ * * * an action in the nature of a proceeding in rem * * * authorizes the courts of this state, so far as such property is affected only, to bind all persons with respect to their interest in such property * * *.”).
Stewart v. Fahey 481 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
In Re Milliman's Estate 406 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Additionally, , 147 P. 722, 729 (1915) is helpful: "While, properly speaking, actions or proceedings in rem are against the thing itself, and for the purpose of disposing thereof without reference to the title of particular claimants, the term has in a larger and broader sense been applied to certain actions and proceedings be
Bekins v. Huish 401 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bekins v. Huish 401 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
147 P. 722, 728 [1915], quoted from Austin’s Jurisprudence as follows: “ ‘All rights in personam are rights to acts and forbearances and nothing more.
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
147 P. 722 ; , 270 P. 625 ; , 283 P. 281 ; Packard Phoenix Motor Co. v. American-La France & Foamite Corp., , 288 P. 1024 ; and Ruby v. United Sugar Companies, S.A., , .
Brophy v. Powell 121 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1942
Brophy v. Powell 121 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1942
*562 Further, , 147 Pac.
Ruby v. United Sugar Companies, S. A. 109 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1941
Ruby v. United Sugar Companies, S. A. 109 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1941
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 , 24 L. Ed. 565 ; , 147 Pac.
Colman v. Button 22 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1933
Colman v. Button 22 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1933
Steinfeld v. Copper State Mining Co. 290 P. 155 Ariz. 1930
Steinfeld v. Copper State Mining Co. 290 P. 155 Ariz. 1930
Packard Phoenix Motor Co. v. American-LaFrance & Foamite Corp. 288 P. 1024 Ariz. 1930
Packard Phoenix Motor Co. v. American-LaFrance & Foamite Corp. 288 P. 1024 Ariz. 1930
Morton v. Pacific Construction Co. 283 P. 281 Ariz. 1929
Morton v. Pacific Construction Co. 283 P. 281 Ariz. 1929
Cooper v. Holder 210 P. 690 Ariz. 1922
Cooper v. Holder 210 P. 690 Ariz. 1922