Wallen v. Jacobson

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Wallen v. Jacobson

504 P.2d 499, 18 Ariz. App. 558, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 924

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedDecember 27, 1972

Docket2 CA-CIV 1338

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 504 P.2d 499 (Wallen v. Jacobson) 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

Wallen v. Jacobson, 504 P.2d 499, 18 Ariz. App. 558, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 924 (Ark. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner is one of several defendants in a pending Pima County Superior Court action for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Maricopa County. She seeks review of a venue ruling by way of special action, and since appellate intervention is appropriate, we assume jurisdiction. Brown v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz.App. 434, 409 P.2d 593 (1966) ; Sherrill v. Superior Court, 16 Ariz.App. 425, 493 P.2d 1230 (1972).

The complaint filed below named several individual defendants and one corporate defendant. All were served with process in Maricopa County, the corporate defendant by service of process upon its statutory agent. Petitioner filed a timely motion for change of venue, supported by affidavit, requesting transfer of the action to Maricopa County where she resides. Her motion was denied, apparently for the reason that the corporate defendant had an agent and transacted business in Pima County.

It is well settled that when a proper request for a change of venue has been made, transfer is mandatory. GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley, 14 Ariz. App. 156, 481 P.2d 526 (1971); Massengill v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App. 588, 416 P.2d 1009 (1966); Sherrill v. Superior Court, supra.

We agree with petitioner that the principles enunciated by our Supreme Court in Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79, 308 P.2d 701 (1957), control the case sub judice. In Wray, the court held that A.R.S. § 12-401, subsec. 18, as amended, permitting suit against a corporation in any county in which the cause of action arose or in the county in which it had an agent, owned property or conducted business, did not authorize the joinder of a defendant residing outside the county when he makes timely objection thereto. We hold, therefore, that denial of petitioner’s request was erroneous.

The order denying the motion for change of venue is hereby vacated and the trial court is directed to enter an appropriate order of transfer not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner is one of several defendants in a pending Pima County Superior Court action for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Maricopa County. She seeks review of a venue ruling by way of special action, and since appellate intervention is appropriate, we assume jurisdiction. Brown v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz.App. 434, 409 P.2d 593 (1966) ; Sherrill v. Superior Court, 16 Ariz.App. 425, 493 P.2d 1230 (1972).

The complaint filed below named several individual defendants and one corporate defendant. All were served with process in Maricopa County, the corporate defendant by service of process upon its statutory agent. Petitioner filed a timely motion for change of venue, supported by affidavit, requesting transfer of the action to Maricopa County where she resides. Her motion was denied, apparently for the reason that the corporate defendant had an agent and transacted business in Pima County.

It is well settled that when a proper request for a change of venue has been made, transfer is mandatory. GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley, 14 Ariz. App. 156, 481 P.2d 526 (1971); Massengill v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App. 588, 416 P.2d 1009 (1966); Sherrill v. Superior Court, supra.

We agree with petitioner that the principles enunciated by our Supreme Court in Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79, 308 P.2d 701 (1957), control the case sub judice. In Wray, the court held that A.R.S. § 12-401, subsec. 18, as amended, permitting suit against a corporation in any county in which the cause of action arose or in the county in which it had an agent, owned property or conducted business, did not authorize the joinder of a defendant residing outside the county when he makes timely objection thereto. We hold, therefore, that denial of petitioner’s request was erroneous.

The order denying the motion for change of venue is hereby vacated and the trial court is directed to enter an appropriate order of transfer not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 499, 18 Ariz. App. 558, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallen-v-jacobson-arizctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack