Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court, 764 P.2d 759.

37 citing documents.

DOE v. THE CORPORATION Ariz. 2026
Doe, 2025 WL 2158205, at *4 ¶ 19 (–31 (App. 1988)).
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Opinion of the Court 469 (App. 1994) (statute cited in general discussion of physician’s duty to disclose certain information); -39 (App. 1994) (statute listed as example of exception to marital communication privilege); L.A.R., (whether statute creates testimonial privilege for clergy independent of penitent’s consent); Samaritan Health Servs.
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶13 “A privilege in the law of evidence is a right which a person has in a given instance to prevent the revelation of otherwise material and relevant evidence.” (citation omitted).
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cnty., see also State Farm Mut.
State v. Archibeque 221 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Archibeque 221 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry No Travmed USA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Special action is the proper means to seek relief.” -26, -61 (App. 1988); see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.
Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Catrone v. Miles 160 P.3d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“Privilege statutes, which impede the truth-finding function of the courts, are restrietively interpreted.”
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Emergency Care Dynamics, (work product immunity), -26, -61 (App. 1988) (clergy-penitent privilege); 4 see also Yuma Reg’l Med.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Buell, 96 Ariz. at 68 , 391 P.2d at 923-24
Waters v. O'CONNOR 103 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Waters v. O'CONNOR 103 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(construing clergy-penitent privilege statute applicable in civil cases, A.R.S.
Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Special action is the proper means to seek relief.” -26 , -61 (App.1988).
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County 897 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County 897 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
epted special action jurisdiction because the issue presented requires us to interpret a constitutional amendment, , and because special action is the proper means to seek relief from an order for disclosure of information that a privilege is claimed to protect, , *468 25-26, -61 (App.1988).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JD-6236 874 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JD-6236 874 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-26 , -61 (App.1988) (“When a trial court orders disclosure that a party or witness believes to be protected by a privilege, appeal provides no remedy.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Styers v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 779 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Styers v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MOHAVE 779 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989