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 2 courts 2000–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Nat’l Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, 437 , 682 P.2d 439, 442 (App.1984) *371 ("[A] defendant who has obtained an adverse ruling on its jurisdictional defense has not waived that defense on appeal even though he proceeds to trial on the merits and a judgment has been entered against him.”). 2012See Nat’l Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, 437 , 682 P.2d 439, 442 (App.1984) *371 ("[A] defendant who has obtained an adverse ruling on its jurisdictional defense has not waived that defense on appeal even though he proceeds to trial on the merits and a judgment has been entered against him.”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)green1 sentence2025(No. VI), 921 F.3d 98, 105 (3d Cir. 2019) (finding waiver: recognizing that defendant’s conduct can waive a personal jurisdiction defense “even where a defendant has raised the defense” and “[a] party's actions must also be consistent with the spirit of Rule 12 by diligently advancing its procedural objections.”). | 1 | 1 |
Barassi v. Matisongreen2 sentences2023Thus, he cannot here re-assert a personal jurisdiction defense, “whether or not on the basis of arguments made in the [Connecticut] action.” Restatement (Second) Judgments § 27 cmt. c; accord Barassi v. Matison, 134 Ariz. 338, 341 (App. 1982) (explaining that issue preclusion 13 COCCHIA v. TESTA, et al. 2023Thus, he cannot here re-assert a personal jurisdiction defense, “whether or not on the basis of arguments made in the [Connecticut] action.” Restatement (Second) Judgments § 27 cmt. c; accord Barassi v. Matison, 134 Ariz. 338, 341 (App. 1982) (explaining that issue preclusion 13 COCCHIA v. TESTA, et al. | 1 | 1 |
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd.green1 sentence2017Planning Grp., 226 Ariz. 262, ¶¶ 15-16, 25 , 246 P.3d at 347, 349 (“[Contacts by a defendant with the forum state ... not directly related to the asserted cause of action ... cannot sustain the exercise of specific jurisdiction.”). ¶ 10 “The requirement that a nexus exist between a defendant’s activities in the forum state and a plaintiffs cause of action provides the key to exercising specific jurisdiction.” Williams, 199 Ariz. 1, ¶ 11 , 13 P.3d at 283 . | 1 | 1 |
Reeder v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2017Planning Grp., 226 Ariz. 262, ¶¶ 15-16, 25 , 246 P.3d at 347, 349 (“[Contacts by a defendant with the forum state ... not directly related to the asserted cause of action ... cannot sustain the exercise of specific jurisdiction.”). ¶ 10 “The requirement that a nexus exist between a defendant’s activities in the forum state and a plaintiffs cause of action provides the key to exercising specific jurisdiction.” Williams, 199 Ariz. 1, ¶ 11 , 13 P.3d at 283 . | 1 | 1 |
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Conlingreen2 sentences2009See Flood Control Dist. v. Conlin, 148 Ariz. 66, 68 , 712 P.2d 979, 981 (App. 1985). [2] Although Hurley previously raised a personal jurisdiction defense in his answer, his subsequent motion to dismiss on that ground, made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), arguably was untimely. 2009See Flood Control Dist. v. Conlin, 148 Ariz. 66, 68 , 712 P.2d 979, 981 (App. 1985). [2] Although Hurley previously raised a personal jurisdiction defense in his answer, his subsequent motion to dismiss on that ground, made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), arguably was untimely. | 1 | 1 |
A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMAgreen2 sentences2000Because Arizona's long-arm rule confers jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, "[t]he jurisdictional issue ... hinges on federal law." Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569 , 892 P.2d 1354, 1358 (1995). ¶ 6 The personal jurisdiction test, set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 160 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial just 2000Because Arizona's long-arm rule confers jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, "[t]he jurisdictional issue ... hinges on federal law." Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569 , 892 P.2d 1354, 1358 (1995). ¶ 6 The personal jurisdiction test, set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 160 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial just | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Lakeview Co.
green
2 sentences2017Planning Grp., 226 Ariz. 262, ¶¶ 15-16, 25 , 246 P.3d at 347, 349 (“[Contacts by a defendant with the forum state ... not directly related to the asserted cause of action ... cannot sustain the exercise of specific jurisdiction.”). ¶ 10 “The requirement that a nexus exist between a defendant’s activities in the forum state and a plaintiffs cause of action provides the key to exercising specific jurisdiction.” Williams, 199 Ariz. 1, ¶ 11 , 13 P.3d at 283 . 2017Planning Grp., 226 Ariz. 262, ¶¶ 15-16, 25 , 246 P.3d at 347, 349 (“[Contacts by a defendant with the forum state ... not directly related to the asserted cause of action ... cannot sustain the exercise of specific jurisdiction.”). ¶ 10 “The requirement that a nexus exist between a defendant’s activities in the forum state and a plaintiffs cause of action provides the key to exercising specific jurisdiction.” Williams, 199 Ariz. 1, ¶ 11 , 13 P.3d at 283 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000Because Arizona's long-arm rule confers jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, "[t]he jurisdictional issue ... hinges on federal law." Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569 , 892 P.2d 1354, 1358 (1995). ¶ 6 The personal jurisdiction test, set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 160 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial just 2000Because Arizona's long-arm rule confers jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, "[t]he jurisdictional issue ... hinges on federal law." Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569 , 892 P.2d 1354, 1358 (1995). ¶ 6 The personal jurisdiction test, set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 160 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial just | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.