who has Arizona cases?

[Beergoggles]

I am wondering who has case law in AZ for lack of standing, hearsay?

Thanks

BG

This post has been edited and the first few posts below are for a different question

Edited March 3, 2012 by Beergoggles
Need case law for standing in AZ!

[1stStep]

That's irrelevant...you could appear by phone if you wanted to as well.

[legaleagle]

I doubt you'll ever find this on any search engine. Try Google Scholar, but this won't show up, I bet. Irrelevant to the extent that courts allow telephone appearances. Want him/ her there live so you can get the same answers? Fine, opposing counsel will say. Issue a subpoena and then you pay for travel and lodging, not to mention letters of rogatory and court costs to enforce the subpoena. "Fuggedaboudit."

[Sandra58]

I had a telephonic hearing with this lawfirm- the person was (Esquivil) I believe that Kaplan is deceased. and the address that Esquivil was for Phoenix (sorry about the spelling- don't have the docs in front of me)

[Beergoggles]

Any help is greatly appreciated

[BV80]

"Summary judgment should not be granted where there is a genuine disputed issue of material fact or even the slightest doubt as to the facts." Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi, 675 P. 2d 703 - Ariz: Supreme Court 1983

"It is, however, hornbook law that in order to effect a legal assignment of any kind there must be evidence of an intent to assign or transfer the whole or part of some specific thing, debt, or chose in action, and the subject matter of the assignment must be described sufficiently to make it capable of being readily identified." Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick, 570 P. 2d 769 - Ariz: Supreme Court 1977

The above states that a valid assignment must show what was assigned. It must describe the subject matter well enough that it can identified. If the bill of sale doesn't reference your name or account number, the alleged account which is the subject of their Complaint is not identifiable in that bill of sale.

[Beergoggles]

how did you find these I have been reading cases for days now! and thanks!

"Summary judgment should not be granted where there is a genuine disputed issue of material fact or even the slightest doubt as to the facts." Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi, 675 P. 2d 703 - Ariz: Supreme Court 1983

"It is, however, hornbook law that in order to effect a legal assignment of any kind there must be evidence of an intent to assign or transfer the whole or part of some specific thing, debt, or chose in action, and the subject matter of the assignment must be described sufficiently to make it capable of being readily identified." Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick, 570 P. 2d 769 - Ariz: Supreme Court 1977

The above states that a valid assignment must show what was assigned. It must describe the subject matter well enough that it can identified. If the bill of sale doesn't reference your name or account number, the alleged account which is the subject of their Complaint is not identifiable in that bill of sale.

[BV80]

Here's another one:

"As a matter of sound judicial policy, however, this court has long required that persons seeking redress in Arizona courts must first establish standing to sue." Bennett v. Napolitano, 81 P. 3d 311 - Ariz: Supreme Court 2003

Absent a valid assignment, Midland hasn't proven proven ownership of any account related to you. Therefore, they haven't proven that they have standing to sue you.