DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Linder v. Brown & Herrick, 943 P.2d 758.

44 citing documents.

  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Knight v. Elias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    v. Symington, ¶ 22 (App. 2000) (finding disclosure failures to be misconduct warranting Rule 60 relief from judgment in same action); Linder v. Brown & Herrick, –07 (App. 1997) (describing “other remedies” available to litigants who believe opposing counsel are guilty of misconduct in litigation, including filing of Rule 60 motion for relief from final judgment on basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct); (App.
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Mason v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 14 (App. 2010) (noting that privilege applies to claims of false light invasion of privacy); Linder v. Brown & Herrick, 406 (App. 1997) (applying privilege to preclude claim of fraud arising from allegedly defamatory statements made by opposing counsel to court); –26 (App. 1980) (applying privilege to preclude claim of tortious interference with contract arising from allegedly defamatory state
  • Allen v. Ieng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Allen v. Ieng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    County of Maricopa, ¶ 73 (App. 2014) (quoting Linder v. Brown & Herrick, –05 (App. 1997)).
  • Yazbeck v. Yazbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Yazbeck v. Yazbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (noting an appellate court may affirm for reasons other than those relied upon by the family court) (citing Earthworks Contracting Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Constr.
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    3 When imposing sanctions, a superior court applies an objective reasonableness standard, Cal X-Tra, 229 Ariz. at 410, ¶ 113, of “what a professional, competent attorney would do in similar circumstances,” Linder v. Brown & Herrick
  • Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    3 EDWARDS v, SMITH et al. Decision of the Court exists for participants in judicial proceedings.’” Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (citation omitted); (noting “an absolute privilege [for] .
  • holder/carter v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • holder/carter v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶9 We will affirm the dismissal of a complaint “only if the plaintiff is not entitled to relief ‘under any facts susceptible of proof under the claims stated.’” Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (quoting Donnelly Constr.
  • Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (citing Earthworks Contracting Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Constr.
  • Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Linder v. Brown & Herrick, -05 , -65 (App.1997).
  • Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Yeung v. MARIC 232 P.3d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See, e.g., Linder v. Brown & Herrick
  • Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    P. 9(b); Linder v. Brown & Herrick, -05 , -65 (App.1997).
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Linder v. Brown & Herrick, -05 , -65 (App.1997).
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    as rejecting a primary claim of fraud by an adverse party and concludes that this shows that actions against lawyers for other causes of action cannot be filed.
  • Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    Linder v. Brown & Herrick
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
    See Linder v. Brown & Herrick, (“[A]s a matter of law and common sense, they had no right to rely on statements made by the attorneys opposing them.”).
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 83 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Roush argues that claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against opposing counsel have not been allowed, citing Linder v. Brown & Herrick
  • Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    398, 402, quoting Donnelly Constr.
  • Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    See Gordon; Linder v. Brown & Herrick, P.2d 758 (App. 1997) (appellate court may affirm for reasons other than those relied upon by trial court).
  • Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Linder v. Brown & Herrick
  • Kremser v. Quarles & Brady, L.L.P. 36 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Kremser v. Quarles & Brady, L.L.P. 36 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Linder v. Brown & Herrick, , Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High Sch.
  • State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    See Linder v. Brown & Herrick, , (this court considers only the evidence presented to the trial court).
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Citing Linder v. Brown & Herrick, , , HLM responds, as it persuaded the trial court, that the only claim that may be brought against opposing counsel is a claim for malicious prosecution.