Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stephens v. Stephens, 152 P. 164.

48 citing documents.

Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
231, 236 , ( , 152 P. 164 (1915)), and we adopt that meaning.
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See, , American Buyers, 84 Ariz. at 380 , 329 P.2d at 1102 ; Conkling, 29 Ariz. at 68 , 239 P. at 509 ; , 152 P. 164, 165 (1915).
Hill v. Hall Ex Rel. County of Yuma 980 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hofstra v. Mahoney 502 P.2d 1317 Ariz. 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 502 P.2d 1317 Ariz. 1972
152 P. 164 , in which this Court said, with reference to a petition to modify a divorce decree: “The proceeding .
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
152 P. 164 (1915), a “civil action” was defined as a “lawful demand for a legal right in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statute.” In accordance with this definition Stephens held that a petition to modify a decree of divorce was a separate “civil action” giving rise to the right to file an applicati
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofstra v. Mahoney 499 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
152 P. 164 (1915) : “The truth of the affidavit filed is not what disqualifies the judge, but the affidavit itself.” .
Anonymous v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 484 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Anonymous v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 484 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Badertscher v. Badertscher 460 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
The court further stated that a judge may not assign a case ‘ * * * when the judge has heard and ruled on contested matters.” , the court disapproved of the Barry ruling that if a judge ruled on any litigated or contested matter it was too late to disqualify, , 152 P. 164 (1915).
West v. Superior Court 448 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1968
West v. Superior Court 448 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1968
152 P. 164 , which held that an affidavit had been timely filed even though the trial judge had previously passed upon certain preliminary matters.
State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
State v. Tatkenhorst 437 P.2d 948 Ariz. 1968
In order to insure this right, this court early announced, , 152 P. 164 , that a litigant has a peremptory right of disqualification.” The test is set forth in State v. Neil, supra: “The timeliness of the filing of the affidavit has been considered several times by this court.
State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 425 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1967
In order to insure this right, this court early announced, , 152 P. 164 , that a litigant has a peremptory right of disqualification.
Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
Newsom v. Superior Court 425 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
152 P. 164 which committed us to.
State v. Neil 419 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Liston v. Butler 421 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Liston v. Butler 421 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Itule v. Farley 383 P.2d 127 Ariz. 1963
Itule v. Farley 383 P.2d 127 Ariz. 1963
Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
Hordyk v. Farley 382 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1963
152 P. 164 (1915); , 185 P. 539 (1919).
Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
Marsin v. Udall 279 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1955
Vazzano v. Superior Court 249 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952
Vazzano v. Superior Court 249 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1952
776 ; where an affidavit of bias and prejudice is filed in a civil action and the presiding judge refuses to step aside, , 152 P. 164 ; where a superior court has set aside a judgment on a motion based on inadvertence, excusable neglect, or mistake, more than six months after entry, , 211 P. 592 ; or where a court appoints a receiver and there is not a case pending or there are other adequate remed
Mosher v. Wayland 158 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1945
Mosher v. Wayland 158 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1945
B.W.L. Sam v. State 265 P. 609 Ariz. 1928
B.W.L. Sam v. State 265 P. 609 Ariz. 1928
Speakman v. Sullivan 257 P. 986 Ariz. 1927
Speakman v. Sullivan 257 P. 986 Ariz. 1927
Such is the plain language of the statute, and such has been the holding of this court on several occasions; Pac.
Conkling v. Crosby 239 P. 506 Ariz. 1925
Conkling v. Crosby 239 P. 506 Ariz. 1925
Bolen v. Quihuiz 225 P. 1110 Ariz. 1924
Bolen v. Quihuiz 225 P. 1110 Ariz. 1924
In support of this proposition *353 , 152 Pac.
Van Dyke v. Superior Court 211 P. 576 Ariz. 1922
Van Dyke v. Superior Court 211 P. 576 Ariz. 1922
435 , 2 N. W. 543 , , 152 Pac.
Allan v. Allan 185 P. 539 Ariz. 1919
Allan v. Allan 185 P. 539 Ariz. 1919
The Stephens case, , 152 Pac.