Navarro v. State, 256 P. 114 (Ariz. 1927). · Go Syfert
Search
Navarro v. State, 256 P. 114 (Ariz. 1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …debatable question is raised by the appeal, at p. 120 ✓
38 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gharadaghian v. Olives (arizctapp, 2026-01-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gharadaghian v. Olives (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Benefit Ass’n, 48 Ariz. 173, 174 (1936) (quoting Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927)); see, e.g., Skelsey v. Kuhn, 23 Ariz. 367, 369 (1922); Hatch v. Leighton et al., 24 Ariz. 300, 305 (1922).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clay v. Geiser (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Benefit Ass’n, 48 Ariz. 173, 174 (1936) (quoting Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927)); see, e.g., Skelsey v. Kuhn, 23 Ariz. 367 (1922); Hatch v. Leighton et al., 24 Ariz. 300 (1922).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. Martinet
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eureste v. Berrey
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927). ¶9 We review the superior court’s issuance of an IAH for an abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caudill v. Nelson
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Though Mother failed to file an answering brief, we decline to treat that failure as a concession of reversible error because no “debatable question is raised by the appeal.” Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927). ¶7 We review de novo whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Evans
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
While the “failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by appellee,” Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927), this rule may yield in cases involving the best interests of children.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to B.K.
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Our supreme court has held in cases with debatable issues, “a failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by appellee.” Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927); see also Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 157 (1965) (reiterating that our Supreme Court will “assume that failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of appellee.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mayberry v. Stambaugh
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
In 1927, our supreme court described the Wheeler/Frederickson rule as a holding: "This court has held previously in several cases that a failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by appellee." Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927).
examined Cited "see" Swenson v. Swenson (3×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Navarro, 32 Ariz. at 120–21 (when an opening brief raises debatable issues, we generally deem the appellee’s failure to answer a confession of error and reverse and remand the matter).
cited Cited "see" Danko v. Wilson
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120 (1927); Turf Irrigation & Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LOLA NAVARRO, Appellant,
v.
STATE, Respondent
Civil No. 2462..
Arizona Supreme Court.
May 23, 1927.
256 P. 114
1927 Ariz. LEXIS 150
Mr. C. H. Jordan, for Appellant., No appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM..
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Suit was brought by the state of Arizona under the provisions of chapter 58, Session Laws of 1919, to forfeit a certain automobile, which it was alleged had been used unlawfully in the transportation of intoxicating liquor. The case was originally filed against Mike Navarro, and Lola Navarro, his wife, intervened, claiming to be the owner of the car in question, and that it was used without her knowledge. Judgment was entered in favor of the state and the automobile ordered confiscated, whereupon the intervener appealed to this» court. The abstract of record was filed October 19th, 1925, and the brief of intervener on the twenty-first day of December, 1926, but the state has filed no answering brief.

This court has held previously in several cases that a failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by appellee. Merrill v. Wheeler, 17 Ariz. 348, 152 Pac. 859; Childs v. Frederickson, 21 Ariz. 248, 187 Pac. 573; Skelsey v. Kuhn, 23 Ariz. 367, 203 Pac. 1082; Hatch v. Leighton et al., 24 Ariz. 300, 209 Pac. 300.

While we do not lay down as a rigid rule that in all such cases the judgment of the lower court will be reversed, yet, when on examination of the pleadings and the assignments of error it appears a debatable question is raised by the appeal, and no reasonable excuse for appellee’s failure to file a brief is shown, we assume the latter confesses error,[*121] and will reverse the case and remand it for new trial. Paragraph 1266, Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1913, Civil Code.

We have examined the abstract of record and the brief of appellant, and think the case comes within the rule. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the superior court of Navajo county is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.