Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Morris

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided January 17, 1996No. 1 CA-CV 93-0351PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McGREGOR, Judge.

The primary issue before us is whether a court should dismiss a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action on grounds of abatement when an earlier-filed action seeking ejectment is pending. Because abatement bars the later action only if it raises issues substantially identical to those raised by the earlier action, we must determine whether Arizona’s amended statutory scheme for FED actions permits the trial court to inquire into the validity of title, an inquiry central to an ejectment action. We hold that because the court cannot inquire into the validity of title in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners ADArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Whitfield Transportation, Inc. v. BrooksArizona Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'nArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Jepson v. NewArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. RushingArizona Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  2. Curtis v. MorrisArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  3. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  4. State v. EsserCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  5. Pijanowski v. Yuma CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002

7 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