Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tarr v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTYgreen2 sentences2023This argument is improper on appeal. ¶12 After the entry of default, “a defaulted party loses all rights to litigate the merits of the cause of action.” Tarr v. Superior Ct. In & For Pima Cnty., 142 Ariz. 349, 351 (1984). 2020A party in default loses the right to litigate liability, but not the right to appear at the default judgment hearing or "introduce evidence concerning the extent of their liability." Tarr v. Superior Court, 142 Ariz. 349, 351 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
Richas v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC.green2 sentences2024Richas, 133 Ariz. at 514 . 2018See, e.g., Richas v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 512, 514 (1982). 8 The court asked whether Lifewell accepted walk-ins or appointments, but neither counsel could answer the question. 6 TRISHA A. v. DCS, et al. | 1 | 2 |
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2023If the motion is denied, “[t]he scope of an appeal . . . is restricted to the questions raised by the motion to set aside. . . .” Hirsch, 136 Ariz. at 311 . ¶13 By arguing that the superior court admitted evidence at the default judgment hearing that was either insufficient or inadmissible parol evidence, ABS is not challenging the validity of the judgment or whether ABS was properly defaulted. 2020"At 4 CUEN v. CUEN Decision of the Court the outset we note that it is a highly desirable legal objective that cases be decided on their merits and that any doubts should be resolved in favor of the party seeking to set aside the default judgment." Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc., 136 Ariz. 304, 308 (1983). ¶11 Pedro asserts the default judgment is void because his due process rights were violated when he did not receive notice of the default judgment hearing as required by Rule 55(b)(2)(C). | 1 | 2 |
Dungan v. Superior Court in & for County of Pinalgreen2 sentences1984In Dungan v. Superior Court in and for the County of Pinal, 20 Ariz.App. 289 , 512 P.2d 52 (1973), in discussing the right of a defaulted party to participate in a default judgment hearing, this court em *375 phasized the importance of our adversary system of justice saying: ... 1984In Dungan v. Superior Court in and for the County of Pinal, 20 Ariz.App. 289 , 512 P.2d 52 (1973), in discussing the right of a defaulted party to participate in a default judgment hearing, this court em *375 phasized the importance of our adversary system of justice saying: ... | 1 | 2 |
Cook v. Steinergreen1 sentence2020As this Court previously held, a "party whose 5 CUEN v. CUEN Decision of the Court pleadings have been stricken as a sanction under Rule 37 must be given notice of the application for judgment as required by Rule 55(b)(2) because that party has 'appeared' in the action." Id.; see also Cook v. Steiner, 22 Ariz. App. 505, 507 (1974) (remanding to allow defendant, defaulted under Rule 37(d), full participation at a Rule 55(b)(2) hearing). ¶14 Teresa then argues, without citing any authority, that Pedro received constructive notice of the default judgment hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Gustafson v. McDadegreen2 sentences2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. 2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. | 1 | 1 |
McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakersgreen2 sentences2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. 2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2020As this Court has often stated, the "language of Rule 55(b) evinces an intention to place broad discretion in the hands of the court to 'conduct such hearings' as would be in furtherance of 'establishing the truth of the averments' contained in the 6 CUEN v. CUEN Decision of the Court complaint." Dungan v. Superior Court, 20 Ariz. App. 289, 291 (1973); see Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Ariz. Tax Court (Citrus Heights), 165 Ariz. 47, 50 (App. 1990) (noting that trial courts should exercise their discretion in favor of allowing defendants to participate in default hearings). | 1 | 1 |
Bys Inc. v. Smoudigreen2 sentences2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. 2020McClintock v. Serv-Us Bakers, 103 Ariz. 72, 74 (1968); BYS Inc., 228 Ariz. at 578, ¶ 21; Gustafson v. McDade, 26 Ariz. App. 322, 323 (1976). ¶12 Here, Teresa requested a default judgment hearing, and the judgment states that a hearing was held on December 4, 2018. | 1 | 1 |
Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powleygreen1 sentence2016Health For Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley, 203 Ariz. 536, 538, ¶ 11 (App. 2002) (citation omitted). ¶15 Before and during the default judgment hearing, the superior court gave no indication that it was expecting Weston to present evidence as to liability or as to any claims against other parties. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court
neutral
2 sentences1984In Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court, 8 Ariz.App. 279 , 445 P.2d 555 (1968), we held that where the evidence presented at a default judgment hearing could not be ‘used or weighed’ in deciding issues presented in a proceeding for a preliminary injunction to prevent a sale to satisfy the judgment, the court had not heard ‘evidence’ which would make untimely a subsequently filed affidavit of disqualification of the judge. 1984In Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court, 8 Ariz.App. 279 , 445 P.2d 555 (1968), we held that where the evidence presented at a default judgment hearing could not be ‘used or weighed’ in deciding issues presented in a proceeding for a preliminary injunction to prevent a sale to satisfy the judgment, the court had not heard ‘evidence’ which would make untimely a subsequently filed affidavit of disqualification of the judge. | 2 | 1976–1984 |
Marsin v. Udall
green
1 sentence2016Id. ¶ 14 Later this court addressed waiver under Rule 42(f), Ariz. R. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Austin v. State Ex Rel. Herman
green
1 sentence1984It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that, as to setting aside default judgments, all doubts should be resolved in favor of a trial on the merits, [citations omitted] We conceive that the same principle should apply to a hearing under Rule 55 as to the amount of damages. 10 Ariz.App. at 290-291 , 512 P.2d 52 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Johanson v. United Truck Lines
green
2 sentences1969Though at least one court has permitted the setting aside of a default judgment and a hearing on the amount of damages without comment as to excessiveness, Johanson v. United Truck Lines, 62 Wash.2d 437 , 383 P.2d 512 (1963), we do not believe that this rule should be adopted here. 1969Though at least one court has permitted the setting aside of a default judgment and a hearing on the amount of damages without comment as to excessiveness, Johanson v. United Truck Lines, 62 Wash.2d 437 , 383 P.2d 512 (1963), we do not believe that this rule should be adopted here. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.