Hash's Estate v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 06 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 11087,11087 |
| Citation | 508 P.2d 334,109 Ariz. 258 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of V.L. HASH, aka Vivian L. Hash, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Laurens L. HENDERSON, Superior Court Judge sitting in Probate, Maricopa County, Arizona; Lulu ANDERSON, Josie Sells, Bertie Mae Britt, Marie Sorrell, Una Burton, the heirs at law of Ralph Hash, Deceased, and the heirs at law of Ossie L. Cassell, Deceased, real parties in interest, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Hash, Cantor & Tomanek, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Charles T. Stevens, Phoenix, for respondent Honorable Laurens L. Henderson.
Shimmel, Hill & Bishop, P.C. by Richard B. Johnson, Phoenix, for real parties in interest.
Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty. by David B. Krom, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for intervenor Wilson D. Palmer.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
The coexecutors of the estate of V.L. Hash, deceased, have filed a motion for rehearing and have pointed out that when this court accepted jurisdiction of the special action, no stay was entered by the court. They have indicated that pursuant to the order of the superior court judge they caused notices to be published and certified mailings to be made regarding a hearing to be held February 21, 1973. A matter of approximately four thousand dollars was expended by the estate in accomplishing this.
The hearing noticed for February 21, 1973, was held and various interested parties made an appearance in person, by counsel, or by written statement. Of the persons appearing, some desired their decrees to be filed; others asked that the decrees not be filed.
We hold that the notice requirements set forth in our decision have been substantially complied with. We order that the respondent judge enter appropriate orders disposing of the points raised by parties who made an appearance at the February 21, 1973, hearing. All subsequent actions to set aside decrees filed under his order shall be handled in conformity with paragraph numbered six in the modifications of the order discussed in our decision.
We order that the respondent court proceed as indicated in our decision, Ariz., 507 P.2d 99, except as modified herein.
In all other respects the motion for rehearing is denied.
Note: Justice LOCKWOOD did not participate in the determination of this matter. Judge LEVI RAY HAIRE, Court of Appeals, Division One, was called to sit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeForest v. DeForest
...obtain a nunc pro tunc rendition. We note, however, that in Estate of Hash v. Henderson, 109 Ariz. 174, 507 P.2d 99, modified, 109 Ariz. 258, 508 P.2d 334 (1973), our supreme court permitted entries of 200 dissolution decrees nunc pro tunc without reference to rendition of judgment or fault......
-
Snook v. Aguilar
...prescribe the superior court's jurisdiction. In re Estate of Hash v. Henderson, 109 Ariz. 174, 178, modified on other grounds, 109 Ariz. 258 (1973). The superior court is a single unified court with original jurisdiction over "[c]ases and proceedings in which exclusive jurisdiction is not v......
-
Walsh v. Frank
...court's jurisdiction. In re Estate of Hash v. Henderson, 109 Ariz. 174, 178, 507 P.2d 99, 103, modified on other grounds, 109 Ariz. 258, 508 P.2d 334 (1973). The superior court is a single unified court with original jurisdiction over "[c]ases and proceedings in which exclusive jurisdiction......
-
State v. Hastings
...(citations omitted)), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Hash v. Henderson, 109 Ariz. 174, 177, modified on other grounds, 109 Ariz. 258 (1973).¶8 Regarding the State's purported "waiver," Hastings' reliance on Dawson is misplaced. Dawson addressed whether this court, when the State do......