Nosal v. Collett

448 P.2d 415, 8 Ariz. App. 571
Court of Appeals of Arizona·Decided December 16, 1968·No. 1 CA-CIV 592·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an opinion and order granting rehearing. A rereading of Miller v. Corning Glass Works, 102 Ariz. 326, 429 P.2d 438 (1967), has convinced the two judges who had concurred in the majority opinion previously released, 446 P.2d 950, that their decision is not the law of this state. Miller flatly holds that an affidavit on information and belief, filed to correct deficiencies in an affidavit pertaining to substituted service, is ineffective. (102 Ariz. 330, 429 P.2d 438.) The strict construction accorded Rule 4(e), as amended, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., by this decision of our Supreme Court would indicate that it would give similar treatment to the requirements of the subject statute (A.R.S. § 28-503). A unanimous court now believes that the dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Hathaway, appended to the opinion previously released, correctly states the law of this jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120, subsec. E.

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

Nosal v. Collett, 448 P.2d 415, 8 Ariz. App. 571 (Ark. Ct. App. 1968).

448 P.2d 415 (Nosal v. Collett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kadota v. Hosogai
608 P.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1980)
Cooper v. Commonwealth Title of Arizona
489 P.2d 1262 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1971)
Llamas v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA
474 P.2d 459 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)