DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, 868 P.2d 329.

54 citing documents.

  • Ahern v. equipmentshare.com Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Ahern v. equipmentshare.com Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Buonincontri v. Orhub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Buonincontri v. Orhub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., -19 (App. 1993).
  • Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    We review all aspects of an order imposing Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion.6 James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Dawn v. Yuma's Sunset Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Dawn v. Yuma's Sunset Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sandoval v. Oxford Financial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶22 Ingle contends sanctions were not appropriate because he “conducted a reasonable investigation into both the facts and the law” before filing the motion to disqualify S&H. See, e.g., James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., (“Rule 11 .
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sanctions are appropriate when the signor “knows or should have known, by a reasonable investigation of fact and of law, that [a motion or pleading] is insubstantial, frivolous, groundless or otherwise unjustified.” James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., see Ariz. R. Civ.
  • 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
    319, , 332 (App. 1993) ).
  • In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    overruled on other grounds by James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -88, -21 (App. 1989), abrogated in part on other grounds by James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., (considering Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11, on which Rule 31 is predicated).2 We review the court’s application of A.R.S.
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 113 In general, an attorney violates Rule 11 by filing a document that he or she knows or should know asserts a position that “is insubstantial, frivolous, groundless or otherwise unjustified.” James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., , ( , ).
  • Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., -19 , -32 (App.1993).
  • Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (parties cannot create issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their own depositions), abrogated on other grounds by James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Allstate Indemnity Company v. Lisa Ridgely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Allstate Indemnity Company v. Lisa Ridgely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    [Perrow’s] ex parte statement could not be contradicted by deposition.” In its minute entry granting summary judgment, the trial court stated that Perrow’s “two statements [were] contradictory and [could not] both be true.” P.2d 416 (App. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, P.2d 329 (App. 1993), and MacLean v. State (Department of Education), P.2d 903 (App. 1999), the trial court then refused to consider Perrow’s deposition
  • State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake H avasu Plumbing and Fire Protec., P.2d 329 (App 1993).
  • Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 29 Generally, to properly institute a civil claim, Rule 11 requires that before signing a pleading, an attorney must “possess a good faith belief, formed on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a colorable claim or defense exists.” James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot.
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (citing Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, , and James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, , ).
  • Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (imposition of sanctions under disciplinary rule and court’s inherent powers to sanction attorney misconduct was within sound judicial discretion of trial court); James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, , (appellate court should review all aspects of Rule 11 sanctions under abuse of discretion standard).
  • Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Linder v. Brown & Herrick 943 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 935 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 935 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, , and James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection
  • Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Cf. James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, -19 , -32 (App. 1993).
  • State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Cf. James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, -19 , -32 (App.1993).
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Technologies, Inc. 877 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    See James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, , review denied (March 1, 1994) (all aspects of a trial court’s Rule 11 ruling are reviewed for abuse of discretion); , (determination of “reasonableness” of contractual award of attorneys’ fees is within the discre