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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences2010See also Falcon, 213 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 10 , 144 P.3d at 1256 , (substantial compliance with the service requirement is insufficient). 2010See also Falcon, 213 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 10 , 144 P.3d at 1256 , (substantial compliance with the service requirement is insufficient). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellisongreen2 sentences1986See State v. Ellison, 111 Ariz. 167 , 526 P.2d 706 (1974). 1986See State v. Ellison, 111 Ariz. 167 , 526 P.2d 706 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1992In Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1965) the court held that a lien claimant substantially complied with the service requirement of A.R.S. § 33-993 by serving a copy of the notice and claim of lien on the law partner of the owner’s statutory agent, who later signed an acknowledgement of receipt of service. 1992In Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank, 2 Ariz.App. 321 , 408 P.2d 841 (1965) the court held that a lien claimant substantially complied with the service requirement of A.R.S. § 33-993 by serving a copy of the notice and claim of lien on the law partner of the owner’s statutory agent, who later signed an acknowledgement of receipt of service. | 2 | 1986–1992 |
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989We stated: To conclude otherwise would be a contradiction of the legislative objective of providing a simplified method of taking such appeals. 151 Ariz. at 323 , 727 P.2d at 818 . 1989We stated: To conclude otherwise would be a contradiction of the legislative objective of providing a simplified method of taking such appeals. 151 Ariz. at 323 , 727 P.2d at 818 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor
green
2 sentences1986Since an “appearance” by the “defendant” had been made before an administrative tribunal and A.R.S. § 42-151(D) specifically permits alternative methods of service, including “registered mail,” the provisions of Rule 5(c) apply. 5 Appellee cites Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor, 133 Ariz. 255 , 650 P.2d 1237 (App.1982), as support for its position that the service requirement of § 42-151(D) is jurisdictional. 1986Since an “appearance” by the “defendant” had been made before an administrative tribunal and A.R.S. § 42-151(D) specifically permits alternative methods of service, including “registered mail,” the provisions of Rule 5(c) apply. 5 Appellee cites Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor, 133 Ariz. 255 , 650 P.2d 1237 (App.1982), as support for its position that the service requirement of § 42-151(D) is jurisdictional. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.