Opinion

Massengill v. Superior Court

  • 3 Ariz. App. 588
  • 416 P.2d 1009
  • 1966 Ariz. App. LEXIS 675
Court
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Filed
Jul 27, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Thurman
On the bench
Donofrio, Stevens, Thurman
Cited by
25 cases

filing an action in the wrong county is not a fatal jurisdictional defect but is a venue problem that must be raised in a timely manner

How later courts described this case

  • filing an action in the wrong county is not a fatal jurisdictional defect but is a venue problem that must be raised in a timely manner
  • “There is but one Superior Court in the State of Arizona”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

E. R. THURMAN, Superior Court Judge

(dissenting) :

I regret that I cannot agree with the majority.

In taking the whole picture into consideration I feel that subsection 10 of Section 12-401, A.R.S., as amended, is an exception of necessity.

The opinion of my associates in this case would set up no line of demarcation for the plaintiff would not be prohibited from taking advantage of Section 12-408, subsec. A, A.R.S. since Yuma County is one of the defendants in this case.

*592 We might find ourselves right back in Maricopa County, but subsection 10, stops such a run around.

NOTE: Judge JAMES DUKE CAMERON having requested that he be relieved from the consideration of this matter, Superior Court Judge E. R. THURMAN was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this cause.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.