DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Seidman v. Seidman, 215 P.3d 382.

42 citing documents.

  • KITAGUCHI v. VELASCO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Co., and the record must show that the court thoroughly considered other, less severe sanctions, ¶¶ 30–31 (App. 2009) (vacating the sanction of default when court failed to assess efficacy of less severe sanctions for failure to attend a deposition).
  • Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (sanctions); ¶ 26 (App. 2000) (attorneys’ fees).
  • Aguiniga v. Aguiniga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Aguiniga v. Aguiniga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (rulings on sanctions for discovery violations reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Mikalacki v. Rubezic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We review the court’s decision concerning discovery violation sanctions for “a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009); see also Lenze, 160 Ariz. at 305 (explaining the court’s sanctions for discovery violations are entitled to 6 TOLLER v. TOLLER Decision of the Court deference on appeal).
  • Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Although we generally review an order imposing a sanction for an abuse of discretion, “the trial court’s discretion [to dismiss a complaint] is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).
  • Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Moreover, we believe such circumstances, if and when they arise, can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the superior court’s broad discretion to remedy discovery violations, see, ¶ 18 (App. 2009), and to value property based upon the particular circumstances, see
  • Zandell v. Zandell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Zandell v. Zandell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jost v. Jost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jost v. Jost Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    We review these issues for an abuse of discretion.1 ¶ 13 (App. 2015); ¶ 18 (App. 2009); 351, ¶¶ 14, 32 (App. 1998)
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citing Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    5 BEST WESTERN v. OAKLAND PARK Decision of the Court ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (default entered for party's failure to appear in person at pretrial conference); ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (default entered for party's failure to attend her deposition).
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Moon Valley v. Tegrous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Moon Valley v. Tegrous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    is circumscribed by due process considerations.” ¶ 18
  • Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    However, when a court imposes severe sanctions such as dismissal or entry of default, its discretion “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009).
  • Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See ¶ 20, see also Estate of Lewis, 229 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 20, 275 P.3d at 623; 5 FLOARE v. DAMIAN Decision of the Court Montgomery Ward, 176 Ariz. at 622, 863 P.2d at 914; Lenze, 160 Ariz. at 3
  • HAMMOUDEH, Dba CALIFORNIA AUTO MARKET v. JADA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009