DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lavit v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 1141.

28 citing documents.

  • Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
  • Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    Over the years, judicial immunity has also been extended to certain officers “who perform functions integral to the judicial process.” 101 (App. 1992) (psychologist aiding court in determining child custody entitled to absolute immunity); see also Brittner, (therapist appointed by court as advisor regarding child custody entitled to judicial immunity); (probation officers filin
  • Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Ct., (citing Acevedo v. Pima Cnty.
  • Gibson v. Theut 438 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Brittner v. Lanzilotta 438 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Brittner v. Lanzilotta 438 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “Judicial immunity protects a non- judicial officer performing a function pursuant to a court directive related to the judicial process.” (citing Acevedo ex rel Acevedo v. Pima Cty.
  • Gibson v. Theut 438 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Ct. , , 99, (extending judicial immunity to psychiatrists and psychologists who independently assist the court in making decisions).
  • Paul E. v. Courtney F. 418 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Paul E. v. Courtney F. 418 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ) (holding that judicial immunity "is granted to those who perform functions 'intimately related to,' or which amount to 'an integral part of the judicial process,' " and extends to "a non judicial officer who is delegated judicial duties in aid of the court," such as court-appointed psychiatrists (citations omitted) ); see also *424 Lavit v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa (Okken) , , 99-101, , 1144-46 (App. 1992) (holding that judicial immunity applied to psychologist who performe
  • Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Griggs v. Oasis Adoption Services, Inc. 383 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Emmett McLoughlin Realty, ¶ 2 (App. 2006) (summary judgment); (judicial immunity).
  • Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lynch v. Weinstock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    I. Judicial Immunity ¶8 “Whether judicial immunity exists is a question of law for the court.”
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Burk v. State 156 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Widoff v. Wiens 45 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Widoff v. Wiens 45 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Adams v. State 916 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    Jacqueline LaPointe and Arthur Rojas reported in accordance with the Guidelines promulgated by [him].” In granting the motion, the trial court stated: This Court can find no distinction between the facts in this case as to [appel- *443 lees] including DES and the case of Lavit vs. Superior Court, [ ] (App.1992) on the issue of whether judicial immunity applies to [appellees’] duties as performed in this case.
  • Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Arvizu v. Fernandez 902 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (special action is sole remedy for review of interlocutory order).
  • Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Darragh v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 900 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Accordingly, we have accepted special action review in cases where defendant has claimed judicial immunity, , -99 , -63 (App.1989), because if one is “erroneously forced to stand trial, he has lost the benefit of immunity, even if he is found not liable.” Henke, 161 Ariz. at 99 , 775 P.2d at 1163 .