Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fodor, 880 P.2d 662.

30 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Whether a person knowingly gave a false answer to a question “generally turns on the [person’s] understanding of the question.” (citation omitted).
In Re: Mh2023-004502 Ariz. 2026
In Re: Mh2023-004502 Ariz. 2026
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Adleman 503 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Adleman 503 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2022
Clements, 249 Ariz. at 440 ¶ 10
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
Looking at the circumstances of the communication, “the court must decide whether the party consulting the attorney believes that he or she is approaching the attorney in a professional capacity and with the intent of securing legal advice.”
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
1280, 1283 (1984)); , (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 849 (1st Cir.1984) (quoting McCormick on Evidence, § 91 at 189 (1972)); , (“The test for determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege is a subjective one; it focuses primarily on the state of mind of the client.”).
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“[T]he attorney-client privilege is defeated by a showing of prima facie fraud on the part of the client.”)
State v. Adams 5 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Adams 5 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920 (1996); Blackmore, 186 Ariz. at 632 , 925 P.2d at 1349
State v. Peters 941 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1997
State v. Peters 941 P.2d 228 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
334 , 126 L.Ed.2d.279 (1993)