Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Blazek v. Superior Court, 869 P.2d 509.

58 citing documents.

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
SERVS., LLC 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 penite
Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[A] special action is the appropriate means of relief when a party is ordered to disclose what []he believes is privileged material.”).
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american 505 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american 505 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
This testimonial privilege, known as the anti-marital fact privilege, enables a defendant-spouse in a criminal proceeding “to prevent the other spouse from testifying.”
Manzutto v. Hon. gass/isec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Manzutto v. Hon. gass/isec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
GASS/ISEC Decision of the Court considered the parties’ written submissions.3 Because special action is an appropriate means of relief when the superior court orders a party to disclose what is or what may be privileged, see we accept jurisdiction and grant relief in part.
Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Ass'n 418 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Ass'n 418 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Blazek v. Superior Court , , 536, , 510 (App. 1994).
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 32–2085(A), or (2) implicitly waiving the privilege by pursuing a course of conduct inconsistent with the privilege, such as by placing the underlying condition at issue as a claim or defense, affirmative or otherwise
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. mroz/saldate/milke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Jennifer Braillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rigel Corp. v. State 234 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
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
Blazek v. Superior Court In & For County of Maricopa
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
And, “[a]lthough a trial court is in the best position to rule on discovery requests, it ‘abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision upon irrational bases.’” Fields, 2 P.3d at 672, (internal citation omitted).
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
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
v. O’Neil, , , see also Rules 1 and 3, Ariz. R.P.SpecAct.
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ct., , we see no abuse of the court’s discretion here.
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Johnson v. McDonald 3 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Although a trial court is in the best position to rule on discovery requests, id., it “abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision upon irrational bases.”