Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zakroff v. May, 443 P.2d 916.

53 citing documents.

In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re the ESTATE OF FRANCES B. LEWIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Ct. App. 1991); (court should consider whether “[l]ess serious sanctions .
Seidman v. Seidman 215 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Seidman v. Seidman 215 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (hearing preferred to determine if non-compliance due to willfulness or bad faith); (same).
Robinson v. Higuera 760 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Robinson v. Higuera 760 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rancho Equipment v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Walker, Ariz.App.
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
and cases cited therein; , cf. Hancock v. Arizona Central Credit Union, 24 Ariz.App.
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(b)
Ray v. Starr 539 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ray v. Starr 539 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Simpson v. Heiderich, 4 Ariz.App.
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Buchanan v. Jimenez 501 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Buchanan v. Jimenez 501 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Stoyer v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 488 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stoyer v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 488 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
is that the trial court entered the defendants’ default for failure to answer interrogatories.
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fitzgerald v. Maricopa County 480 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Chavez v. Pima County 477 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Plonkey v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF COCONINO 475 P.2d 492 Ariz. 1970
Plonkey v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR CTY. OF COCONINO 475 P.2d 492 Ariz. 1970
the court stated: “It should be borne in mind that the granting of a judgment agaii.st a party solely for disobedience of a discovery order is a stringent measure which should be employed with caution and restraint.
Jansen v. Lichwa 474 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Jansen v. Lichwa 474 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sweet v. Ybarra 474 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sweet v. Ybarra 474 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Miracle Mile Bottling Distributing Co. v. Drake 471 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Miracle Mile Bottling Distributing Co. v. Drake 471 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co. 470 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sleizer v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. 452 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sleizer v. Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. 452 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Recently, , this court held that fhe trial court had broad discretion under Rule 16.
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968