Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Hooker

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 20, 1982No. 2 CA-CIV 4658PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Can an out-of-state plaintiff be compelled to attend court proceedings within the state by order of the court? This is the issue to be decided by this special action. Since the trial court’s order compelling attendance was an interlocutory, non-appealable order, see A.R.S. § 12-2101, a special action is an appropriate vehicle for review of the trial court’s order. Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 113 Ariz. 498, 557 P.2d 1055 (1976).

Petitioner (husband), the 90-year-old patriarch of the World Wide Church of God, is a resident of Pasadena, California, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Burns v. AmrineSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
  3. Cattle Farms, Inc. v. AbercrombieLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Cattle Farms, Inc. v. AbercrombieSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1963
  5. State Ex Rel. Onishi v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Craft v. ChopraCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1995
  2. Helge v. DrukeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  3. Estate of Lewis v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  4. Hallford-Brown v. VeoliaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
  5. In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWISCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API