Legal Opinion

Moynahan v. Fritz

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1961No. 7408PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice.

One Anthony Fritz, plaintiff in the court below, instituted an action against defendants, Moynahan and Cohen. They, prior to the service of their answer, applied ex parte for and received leave to serve third party defendants pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 14(a). Third party defendants, Clemans Brothers Cattle Company, Inc., Clemans Cattle Company, Inc., W. J. Clemans and M. T. Clem-ans, thereafter filed a motion to vacate the order granting leave to implead on the grounds that they did not come within the terms of Rule 14(a). The motion was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Chapman v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  2. Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Duke v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
  4. Ford Motor Co. v. Milby Ford Motor Co. v. MahoneCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
  5. United States F. G. Co. v. Seed L. Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Musa v. C. K. Adrian, M. D.Arizona Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
  3. Dollar a Day Rent a Car Systems, Inc. v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Markiewicz v. SALT RIVER VALLEY, ETC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
  5. Walker v. Option One Mortgage Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2007

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API