DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Swenson, 617 P.2d 69.

27 citing documents.

  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    conduct warranting Rule 60 relief from judgment in same action); Linder v. Brown & Herrick, –07 (App. 1997) (describing “other remedies” available to litigants who believe opposing counsel are guilty of misconduct in litigation, including filing of Rule 60 motion for relief from final judgment on basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct); (“The court’s inherent power to manage its affairs necessarily includes authority to impose appropriate sanctions on those appearing before it.”)
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    own & Herrick, 406 (App. 1997) (applying privilege to preclude claim of fraud arising from allegedly defamatory statements made by opposing counsel to court); –26 (App. 1980) (applying privilege to preclude claim of tortious interference with contract arising from allegedly defamatory statements in complaint to state bar); 565, 567 (App. 1980) (applying privilege to preclude claim of negligence arising from opposing counsel’s failure to instruct a witness to limit a testimonial response); see al
  • Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    3 EDWARDS v, SMITH et al. Decision of the Court exists for participants in judicial proceedings.’” Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (citation omitted); (noting “an absolute privilege [for] .
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    responds that the trial court correctly dismissed the aiding and abetting count because (1) aiding and abetting is not itself a tort and it has been recognized only sparingly in Arizona, (2) this court has limited the circumstances in which claims may be brought against opposing counsel to malicious prosecution and abuse of process, citing Linder, , , , and Giles, , , (3) limiting actions against *424 attorneys is of constitutional dimension, (4) under settled Arizona law, the aiding and abettin
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
  • Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
    Co. v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A., P.3d 593 (2001); Kremser v. Quarles & Brady, L.L.P., P.3d 761 (App. 2001); P.2d 69 (App. 1980).
  • Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Wetherill v. Basham 3 P.3d 1118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    532, 536 (1986) (citations omitted) (“ ‘[A]n attorney has no duty to protect the interests of an adverse party for the obvious reasons that the adverse party is not the intended beneficiary of the attorney’s services, and that the attorney’s undivided loyalty belongs to the client.’ ”); , quoting Norton v. Hines, 49 Cal.App.3d 917 , 123 Cal.Rptr.
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Citing Linder v. Brown & Herrick, , , HLM responds, as it persuaded the trial court, that the only claim that may be brought against opposing counsel is a claim for malicious prosecution.
  • Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (any duty owed by adverse counsel with respect to the conduct of litigation is “owed to the court, and not to the adverse party.”) Thus, because they had no right to rely, the Linders’ fraud claim is legally deficient.
  • Moore v. Toshiba International Corp. 772 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Moore v. Toshiba International Corp. 772 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    327 , 70 L.Ed.2d 166 (1981)
  • Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Bird v. Rothman 627 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    The issue of an attorney’s