Frank v. Solomon

7 Citing cases

  1. Prior v. Rathjen

    199 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 1972)   Cited 15 times

    In so doing they take the position it is an overrefined tenet of the common law which, like many other technical fictions, has been abrogated by statute. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 67-120; Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591, 594; Wingfoot California Homes Co. v. Valley National Bank, 80 Ariz. 133, 294 P.2d 370, 372-374 (dissent); 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice, § 8.24, page 1831, n. 5 (2d ed.). In any event it is neither essential nor do we invoke the negative pregnant theory in our determination of this summary judgment proceeding.

  2. Cagle v. Carr

    418 P.2d 381 (Ariz. 1966)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming judgment as modified

    Rule 15(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides that "Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires." This court has stated that amendments to pleadings should be granted with great liberality, so that cases may be decided on the merits rather than on mere technicalities of pleadings, and so long as the granting of the amendment does not prejudice the other party. Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591 (1963); Conway v. State Consolidated Pub. Co., 57 Ariz. 162, 112 P.2d 218 (1941). It is the rule in this state that the granting of the motion to amend is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Swift v. City of Phoenix, 90 Ariz. 331, 367 P.2d 791 (1961); White v. White, 78 Ariz. 397, 281 P.2d 111 (1955).

  3. Jobe v. King

    129 Ariz. 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing as too tenuous to support indemnity under Rule 14 defendant's third-party claim alleging that neighbor's wrongful act made it financially impossible for defendant to pay rent

    Since under any state of appellants' pleadings, impleader of appellees under rule 14 was improper, leave to amend was properly denied. Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591 (1963), quoting Beverage v. Canton Placer Mining Co., 43 Cal.2d 769, 278 P.2d 694 (1955); Matter of Estate of Torstenson, 125 Ariz. 373, 609 P.2d 1073 (App. 1980). Finally, appellants argue that even if a valid indemnity claim was not stated against appellees, they were entitled to have their third-party complaint severed and heard separately in a trial on the merits.

  4. Kleinsmith v. Industrial Commission

    26 Ariz. App. 77 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 16 times

    It is the announced general policy of the law that cases should be tried on their merits and not disposed of on technicalities. Bateman v. McDonald, 94 Ariz. 327, 385 P.2d 208 (1963); Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591 (1963); Dons Club v. Anderson, 83 Ariz. 94, 317 P.2d 534 (1957); Dungan v. Superior Court, 20 Ariz. App. 289, 512 P.2d 52 (1973). These broad legal concepts have particular meaning in the field of Workmen's Compensation where the statutes are remedial in nature and are to be interpreted liberally to see that justice is done.

  5. In re Trull

    520 P.2d 1188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 16 times
    In Trull v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 21 Ariz. App. 511, 520 P.2d 1188 (filed 16 April 1974), this Department of the Court of Appeals made an analysis of Parsons which differs to some degree from the analysis by Department B in its opinion entitled Taylor v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 20 Ariz. App. 46, 509 P.2d 1083 (1973).

    Rule 60(c), Rules of Civil Procedure (Vol. 16, ARS), allows defaults to be set aside for numerous reasons in the interest of justice. It is the announced general policy of the law that cases should be tried on their merits and not disposed of on technicalities. Bateman v. McDonald, 94 Ariz. 327, 385 P.2d 208 (1963); Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591 (1963); Dons Club v. Anderson, 83 Ariz. 94, 317 P.2d 534 (1957); Dungan v. Superior Court, 20 Ariz. App. 289, 512 P.2d 52 (1973). These broad legal concepts have particular meaning in the field of Workmen's Compensation where the statutes are remedial in nature and are to be interpreted liberally to see that justice is done.

  6. Bickart v. Greater Arizona Savings Loan Ass'n

    6 Ariz. App. 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    The allegation of $3600 followed by a denial is an admission that $3500 is reasonable. We believe that this rule has been thoroughly eroded by the exception taken to it by the Supreme Court in Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 381 P.2d 591 (1963). Although the facts of that case are limited to whether the trial court should have allowed an amendment to the pleadings to avoid a negative pregnant, the Court stated strongly that where the matter in controversy is clear, the application of the rule is an absurdity.

  7. Harbel Oil Company v. Steele

    402 P.2d 436 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 11 times

    In keeping with this spirit the rule under consideration, Rule 15(a) regarding `Leave to amend shall be freely given of liberality. It specifically states that `Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires.' Furthermore, this Court has stated that amendments of pleadings should be allowed with great liberality to the end that every cause of action shall be decided on its merits whenever possible without prejudice to the other party." Frank v. Solomon, 94 Ariz. 55, 57, 381 P.2d 591, 592 (1963). And also: