Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite SOLIMENO v. Yonan, 227 P.3d 481.

87 citing documents.

Faulkner v. Laboratory Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Partipilo v. Pena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Partipilo v. Pena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9 (App. 2010) (discussing disclosure obligations).
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In the course of our review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the sanction, -83 (App. 1988) (citing Davis v. Tucson Ariz. Boys Choir Soc’y, ), and will affirm if there is any basis to do so supported by the record, ¶ 33 (App. 2010) ().
Rodriguez v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rodriguez v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The relevant question is whether “a party’s (or attorney’s) actions caused unreasonable delay and expansion of the proceedings.” ¶ 32 (App. 2010).
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (App. 2010) (discussing disclosure obligations).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 4 (2014) ( ¶ 19 (2012)); ¶¶ 9-10 (App. 2010).
Munoz v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Munoz v. Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cornerstone v. Kozub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Under § 12-349(A)(3), the relevant question is whether a party’s (or attorney’s) actions caused unreasonable delay and expansion of the proceedings.”
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-81, ¶¶ 13-27, -88 (App. 2010) (noting that the court properly excluded an expert’s testimony because his opinions and the facts relied on were not adequately disclosed); -39, ¶¶ 1, 8, -72 (App. 1998) (noting that trial court did not a
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(trial court has discretion to set amount of sanctions award).
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
However, we may also “affirm a trial court on any basis supported by the record,” , ( , ), and there is an independent and more fundamental basis on which to do so: the agreement falls outside the bounds of Morris 4 I. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT A COMPLIANT MORRIS AGREEMENT AND PROVIDES NO BASI