Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Brimlow, 791 P.2d 1101.

44 citing documents.

Nanini v. Francisco-Baez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nanini v. Francisco-Baez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[A] frivolous appeal is one brought for an improper purpose or based on issues which are unsupported by any reasonable legal theory.”
Pineda v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pineda v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ARCAP 25; –22 (App. 1990).
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
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Majerle v. Zimmerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
see also Jerman v. O’Leary, (“Because the relationship between the parties was founded on the partnership contract, it is proper to award attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S.
Ghb v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ghb v. Solomon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
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
¶13 ARCAP 25 authorizes us to sanction an appellant who brings a frivolous appeal “to discourage similar conduct in the future.” ARCAP 25; –22 (App. 1990).
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Estate of Craig v. Hansgen , , 239, , 324 (App. 1992) (citing Johnson v. Brimlow , , 222, , 1105 (App. 1990) ).
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
An appeal is frivolous when it is “brought for an improper purpose or based on issues which are unsupported by any reasonable legal theory.” (citing Ariz. Tax Research Assoc.
Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Under Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 25, we may impose sanctions if an appeal is “brought for an improper purpose or based on issues which are unsupported by any reasonable legal theory.”
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
¶ 63 “[A] frivolous appeal is one brought for an improper purpose or based on issues which are unsupported by any reasonable legal theory.”
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reade v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[A] frivolous appeal is one brought for an improper purpose or based on issues which are unsupported by any reasonable legal theory.” (citation omitted).
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Barlage v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
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
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
3.1 to avoid claims “for which there is no justification.”
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992