Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Price v. Price, 654 P.2d 46.

80 citing documents.

Nanini v. Francisco-Baez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nanini v. Francisco-Baez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
We may award sanctions for frivolous appeals under Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 25, but “the power to punish attorneys or litigants for prosecuting frivolous appeals should be used most sparingly.” (citation modified).
Ramirez Bros v. Special fund/ortega/diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ramirez Bros v. Special fund/ortega/diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(Courts “should not deter the filing of appeals out of fear of reprisal.”).
Link v. Valdez-Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Link v. Valdez-Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ghb v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ghb v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We consider ARCAP 25 sanctions with “great caution.”
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Holmes v. Allens Auto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
This court exercises its authority to punish litigants for frivolous appeals “most sparingly.” (citation omitted).
Charles v. Carnegie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Charles v. Carnegie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
B of A/swartz v. Avwga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schreiner v. Schreiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schreiner v. Schreiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moreover, we exercise our authority to punish litigants for frivolous appeals “most sparingly.” (citation omitted).
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Evou v. All In Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Evou v. All In Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
pds/zurich v. Silberschlag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pds/zurich v. Silberschlag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We award such sanctions sparingly because “the line between a frivolous appeal and one which simply has no merit is fine.”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
8 We stated in Johnson v. Brimlow: *163 Frivolous appeals are not new or novel theories raised upon colorable claims, , nor positions on appeal that simply fail to prevail.
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In holding that the appellant’s argument did not fall into the category of those unsupported by any legal theory about which reasonable attorneys could differ, , the supreme court focused on Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, , , two cases on which we placed primary reliance in Atchison.
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cross v. Office of the Attorney General 795 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cross v. Office of the Attorney General 795 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
*20 We are unable to find that any reasonable attorney would agree that this appeal was "totally and completely without merit.”
Johnson v. Brimlow 791 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Johnson v. Brimlow 791 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Frivolous appeals are not new or novel theories raised upon colorable claims, , nor positions on appeal that simply fail to prevail.
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Appellate courts traditionally use their authority to impose sanctions under rule 25 with “great reservation.” See
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989