Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Peterson, 462 P.2d 829.

39 citing documents.

Phoenician Equity v. Dreambrands Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Phoenician Equity v. Dreambrands Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Neither Rule 26 and the other discovery rules for which it defines the scope of inquiry nor Rule 27 concerning the perpetuation of testimony [or the preservation of evidence] may be used to ‘discover a cause of action’ and frame an original complaint.” (citation omitted).
Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murrieta v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(Rule 27 should not be “used to discover a cause of action and frame [the] original complaint.” (cleaned up)).
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
and considerations of practical convenience.”
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
While this court does not routinely grant special action jurisdiction in discovery matters, , we accept jurisdiction in this case because “the subsequent course of litigation may be vitally affected by an erroneous order.”
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Samaritan Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court 690 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Samaritan Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court 690 P.2d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 645 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 645 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Pima County v. Harte 638 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Pima County v. Harte 638 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Department 594 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Ingalls v. Superior Court 573 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ingalls v. Superior Court 573 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Since such discovery matters are properly entertained in special actions, , and since we believe the respondent court abused its discretion in granting the order, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Veliz 571 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Veliz 571 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Discovery matters are properly entertained in special actions, , and since we believe the respondent abused his discretion in ordering discovery beyond permissible bounds, we choose to take jurisdiction and grant relief.
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
8 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2374 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
We cannot adopt such a theory in light of Mathews v. Pyle
City of Tucson v. SUP. CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 544 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
City of Tucson v. SUP. CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 544 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
are equally applicable in the instant case.
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Division One of this court approved examination of that portion of an officer’s personnel file pertaining to disciplinary proceedings.
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court 505 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In Southwest we . , in which we stated that we would favorably consider granting extraordinary relief '“when the entitlement is clear, when an important issue is at stake, or when the subsequent course of the litigation may be ■vitally affected by an erroneous order .” 11 Ariz.App.
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
discussing the factors to be considered in determining whether this Court should grant or withhold extraordinary relief in special actions brought to review Superior Court discovery orders, 2 .
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
A similar statement is found in another recent decision of this court, , : “Petitioners correctly point out that the requirement of good cause, though not stated as in Rule 34 of our Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., is read into the subpoena provisions of Rule 45.