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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Curtis v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2024“Because an FED action does not bar subsequent proceedings between the parties to determine issues other than the immediate right to possession, those issues are better resolved in proceedings designed to allow full exploration of the issues involved.” Curtis v. Morris, 184 Ariz. 393, 398 (App. 1995). 2021See Curtis v. Morris, 184 Ariz. 393, 398 (App. 1995) ("Because an FED action does not bar subsequent proceedings between the parties to determine issues other than the immediate right to possession, those issues are better resolved in proceedings designed to allow full exploration of the issues involved."). | 5 | 5 |
Curtis v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2020To find otherwise “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.” Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 535 (1996). ¶19 By purchasing the property at a trustee’s sale, Secure Ventures became its rightful owner under Arizona’s deed of trust statutory 5 SECURE VENTURES v. JOHNSON, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Grady v. Barthgreen1 sentence2019Grady v. Barth, 233 Ariz. 318, 321, ¶ 12 (App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Robert Gruntz, Debtor. Robert Gruntz v. Opinion County of Los Angeles Los Angeles District Attorneygreen1 sentence2016Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1), the filing of a voluntary petition for bankruptcy operates as a stay of the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title. “[A]ctions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void.” In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushinggreen2 sentences1996See Rushing, 64 Ariz. at 205 , 167 P.2d at 397-98 . 1996See Rushing, 64 Ariz. at 205 , 167 P.2d at 397-98 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.