Legal Opinion

Foster v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 28, 1968No. 1 CA-CIV 761PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEVENS, Judge.

In the above numbered Superior Court cause, the Respondent Judge granted the motion of Patrick to strike the answer of the petitioner to Patrick’s counterclaim and to enter the petitioner’s default in relation to the counterclaim by reason of her failure to appear for the taking of her deposition. The rule pursuant to which the Respondent Judge entered his order is Rule 37(d), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., which reads, in part, as follows:

“ * * * If a party * * * zvilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of PimaArizona Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State v. Superior Court in and for County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Agraan v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  4. American Title & Trust Company v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Zakroff v. MayCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  2. J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  3. Larson v. MacIasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API