Cited by

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

38 citing documents.

Mario Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State of Arizona Ariz. 2026
Consistent with that purpose, the privilege reflects a legislative response “to the urgent need of people to confide in, without fear of reprisal, those entrusted with the pressing task of offering spiritual guidance so that harmony with one’s self and others can be realized.” (quoting Keenan v. Gigante, 390 N.E.2d 1151, 1154 (N.Y.
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