Legal Opinion

Arnold v. Van Ornum

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 7, 1966No. 1 CA-CIV 212PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMERON, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, 16 A.R.S. From an order denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the dismissal made pursuant to Rule 60(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, 16 A.R.S., plaintiffs bring this appeal.

We are called upon to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the dismissal.

The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as fohows: On 16 May, 1961, the plaintiffs filed an action in Maricopa County…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. C. Meisel Music Company v. PerlCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  2. Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  3. Edgar v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
  4. Ziemak v. SchnakenbergCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  5. Schwab v. Ames Const.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API