Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lynch v. Arizona Enterprise Mining Co., 179 P. 956.

45 citing documents.

Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
Pablo Gonzalez v. Quoc Nguyen 414 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2018
Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hahne v. Az Air Time Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mining Corp., P. 956 (1919), Appellants assert that Rose-Martin’s failure to “appoint a person authorized to accept service” during her absence constituted negligence that should be imputed to AZ Air Time for purposes of service of process.
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
at 514 , 652 P.2d at 1037 ( , 179 P. 956, 957 (1919)).
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 652 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1982
There must be some legal justification for the exercise of the power, some substantial evidence to support it.” , 179 P. 956, 957 (1919), cited in Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Co., , 179 P. 956 (1919), and to vacate a default judgment without legal grounds is an abuse of discretion.
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Western Coach Corp. v. Mark V Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. 534 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
179 P. 956 (1919); Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Co., 22 Ariz.App.
Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corp. 529 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Followed Sloan v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corp. 529 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In reaching this result, we follow a *574 , 179 P. 956 (1919), where it was held: “We are loath to disturb any order of the lower court based upon the exercise of its discretionary power, but feel that a failure to do so in the case at bar would set a precedent that would imperil the safety of every default judgment, however regularly obtained, where the summ
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
179 P. 956 ; P.2d 484 .” The simultaneous attainment of these desiderata is obviously impossible.
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 400 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Co., , 179 P. 956, 957 (1919).
Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
Gray v. Dillon 396 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
604 ; , ; Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc., , ; , ; , 179 P. 956 ; , 125 P. 873 .
Coconino Pulp and Paper Company v. Marvin 317 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1957
Coconino Pulp and Paper Company v. Marvin 317 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1957
179 P. 956 ; Bowman v. Hall, 83 Ariz.-, .
Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc. 258 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1953
Thomas v. Goettl Bros. Metal Products, Inc. 258 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1953
263 P. 625 ; , 179 P. 956 .
Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. Johnson 165 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1946
Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. Johnson 165 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1946
Perrin, Jr. v. Perrin Properties, Inc. 86 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1939
Perrin, Jr. v. Perrin Properties, Inc. 86 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1939
Daniel v. Telford 75 P.2d 373 Ariz. 1938
Daniel v. Telford 75 P.2d 373 Ariz. 1938
Martin v. Sears 44 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1935
Martin v. Sears 44 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1935
Beltran v. Roll 7 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1932
Beltran v. Roll 7 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1932
Avery v. Calumet & Jerome Copper Co. 284 P. 159 Ariz. 1930
Avery v. Calumet & Jerome Copper Co. 284 P. 159 Ariz. 1930
Faltis v. Colachis 274 P. 776 Ariz. 1929
Garden Development Co. v. Carlaw 263 P. 625 Ariz. 1928
Garden Development Co. v. Carlaw 263 P. 625 Ariz. 1928
Comision Monetaria v. Sonora Bank & Trust Co. 236 P. 1114 Ariz. 1925
Comision Monetaria v. Sonora Bank & Trust Co. 236 P. 1114 Ariz. 1925
it must have concluded that the weight of the evidence preponderated in favor of the motion, for it found that the failure to answer was by reason of “excusable neglect.” In view of the rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the discretion of the trial court in granting a motion to vacate a judgment, unless it appears such discretion was abused ( , 179 Pac.
Arnett v. Smith 226 P. 529 Ariz. 1924
Arnett v. Smith 226 P. 529 Ariz. 1924
Gutierrez v. Romero 210 P. 470 Ariz. 1922
Gutierrez v. Romero 210 P. 470 Ariz. 1922

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by