Brock v. Lamb

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Brock v. Lamb

486 P.2d 812, 15 Ariz. App. 132, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 697

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJuly 6, 1971

Docket1 CA-CIV 1552

StatusPublished

This text of 486 P.2d 812 (Brock v. Lamb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brock v. Lamb, 486 P.2d 812, 15 Ariz. App. 132, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 697 (Ark. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

HAIRE, Judge.

Defendant-appellants appeal from a judgment entered against them by the trial court. Although the appeal raises substantial procedural and substantive questions concerning the propriety of the judgment, no answering brief has been filed herein by appellees. In view of the fact that in our opinion the questions raised present debatable issues, we treat appellee’s failure to file briefs as constituting a confession of error. Parrish v. Parrish, 14 Ariz.App. 584, 485 P.2d 573 (filed June 7, 1971); National Exhibition Co. v. Marx, 9 Ariz. App. 482, 453 P.2d 993 (1969).

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to set aside the default entered against the defendants and to grant appellants a trial on issues formed by the pleadings, or for other appropriate disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAIRE, Judge.

Defendant-appellants appeal from a judgment entered against them by the trial court. Although the appeal raises substantial procedural and substantive questions concerning the propriety of the judgment, no answering brief has been filed herein by appellees. In view of the fact that in our opinion the questions raised present debatable issues, we treat appellee’s failure to file briefs as constituting a confession of error. Parrish v. Parrish, 14 Ariz.App. 584, 485 P.2d 573 (filed June 7, 1971); National Exhibition Co. v. Marx, 9 Ariz. App. 482, 453 P.2d 993 (1969).

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to set aside the default entered against the defendants and to grant appellants a trial on issues formed by the pleadings, or for other appropriate disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 P.2d 812, 15 Ariz. App. 132, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-lamb-arizctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack