Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 27, 1984No. 1 CA-CIV 6261Published

1DissentMeyerson, Presiding Judge

I dissent. The majority’s narrow interpretation given to the term “appeared” in Rule 55(b)(2) is incorrect.

In my opinion, the late filing of an answer can constitute an appearance under Rule 55(b)(2). Arizona courts have followed the majority rule and recognized that an appearance can be any action by which a party comes into court and submits himself to its jurisdiction. National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, at 437, 682 P.2d 439 at 442 (1984) (quoting from Austin v. State ex rel. Herman, 10 Ariz.App. 474, 477, 459 P.2d 753, 756 (1969)). The filing of an answer…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. H. F. Livermore Corporation v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder LoepfeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
  2. Austin v. State Ex Rel. HermanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
  3. National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  4. Hood v. HaynesCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1982
  5. Quaker Furniture House, Inc. v. BallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API