Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Duquette v. Superior Court, 778 P.2d 634.

52 citing documents.

rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
rs/se v. Hon. thompson/vanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Superior Court (State), ¶ 2 (App. 2003), and this case presents a legal question of statewide importance that will arise again, cf. Duquette v. Superior Court (Lamberty)
amer/banner v. Hon. talamante/palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
amer/banner v. Hon. talamante/palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Palmer concedes that Grant applies here on its face, but argues we should “either overrule” or “narrow the holding in Grant by declaring that it applies only to those employees who were involved or had first[-]hand knowledge of the tortious event.” 3 AMER/BANNER v. HON TALAMANTE/PALMER Decision of the Court ¶8
Abdelrahman v. Hon. martin/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Abdelrahman v. Hon. martin/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Duquette v. Superior Court (Lamberty), n. 5 (App. 1989) (finding that parents who filed a medical malpractice case waived their minor son’s physician-patient privilege, as his “legal guardians,” by including him as a plaintiff in the lawsuit and thereby placing his medical condition at issue).
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 15, )); n.2, n.2 (App. 1989) (“A plaintiff’s treating physician is not an expert witness within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(4) .
Sanchez v. Gama 310 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sanchez v. Gama 310 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 10 , a medical malpractice case addressing the issue of attorneys engaging in ex parte communication with a treating physician.
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 1 , this Court held that defense counsel in a medical malpractice action may not engage in ex parte communications with a plaintiff's treating physicians without the plaintiff's consent.
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
272 n. 5, , 637 n. 5 (App.1989).
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 4 , and of statewide importance, , that requires statutory interpretation.
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In addition, Montero presents a question that is one of statewide importance, , and requires statutory interpretation.
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ct., , and requires interpretation of a statutory provision.
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Styles v. Ceranski 916 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Styles v. Ceranski 916 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The trial court excluded the deposition, finding a , wMch held that defense counsel in a medical malpractice action may not engage in ex parte communications with plaintiffs treating physicians without having obtained plaintiffs consent.
Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
section 13-604(U)(l)(a) is an issue of statewide importance, , and “is an issue of the type likely to reoccur.” Miceli v. Industrial Comm’n
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(special action jurisdiction is appropriate over matters of constitutional significance).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
ARIZONA DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Sup. Ct. 891 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
ARIZONA DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Sup. Ct. 891 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa 893 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION We accept jurisdiction because we believe that this issue is one of statewide im *102 portance, , and that the father has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy on appeal because of the special nature of custody proceedings, where delay may result in both significant deprivation of parental rights- and detriment to the child.
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Jones v. Buchanan 868 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Jones v. Buchanan 868 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Trebesch v. Superior Court 855 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
DISCUSSION A. Special Action Jurisdiction We accepted special action jurisdiction because the issue requires us to interpret a portion of a constitutional amendment, , and is of statewide significance, , , appropriately framed and turning on legal principles rather than factual determinations.
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991