Arizona Supreme Court, 1963

Siemers v. Randall

Arizona Supreme Court · Decided July 12, 1963 · Bernstein, Udall, Struck-Meyer

383 P.2d 753; 94 Ariz. 302; 1963 Ariz. LEXIS 323 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Mayberry v. Stambaugh (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024)
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Construction Trucking Service (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
Del Castillo v. Harbour (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
Solomon v. Solomon (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Department Stores of Arizona, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
City of Phoenix v. Schooley (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
City of Tucson v. Echo Ridge Cooperative Corp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967)
United Bonding Insurance v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
Hoffman v. Hoffman (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
Tiller v. Tiller (Ariz. 1965)
State v. Garcia (Ariz. 1964)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the granting of a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner brought the application for a writ of habeas corpus to gain custody of a minor child then living with respondent. Subsequent to the application the minor child was made a ward of the court and was placed with foster parents. Petitioner and respondent had been married but were divorced at the time of the application for the writ. The minor child is not the natural child of the parties. The parties had made application for adoption of the child in California but the adoption had never become final. The respondent claims that the best interest and welfare of the minor child will not be served by granting the custody of the child to the petitioner.

Appellee has not favored us with a brief and this cause has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, 17 A.R.S. Rules of the Supreme Court. We have recently held that:

“ * * * where debatable issues were raised by the appeal, we will assume failure to file an answering brief is a confession on the part of the appellees of reversible error.” Nelson v. Nelson, *303 91 Ariz. 215, 217, 370 P.2d 952, 953. See also Tom v. Baca, 93 Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the judgment of the trial court be vacated and the writ of habeas corpus be denied.

UDALL, V. C. J., and STRUCK-MEYER, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.