Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO, 909 P.2d 449.

34 citing documents.

Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“Existence of a privilege is a question of law, and a special action is the appropriate means of relief when the trial court orders disclosure of information that a party believes is privileged.”).
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“The [attorney- client] privilege may not be used as both a sword and a shield.”) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2001) (noting a party may not “assert[] a particular factual position and then invok[e a] privilege” that
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
Empire West Title v. Hon. talamante/dos Land Holdings LLC Ariz. 2014
Empire West Title v. Hon. talamante/dos Land Holdings 323 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2014
Empire West Title v. Hon. talamante/dos Land Holdings LLC Ariz. 2014
of Coconino (Gerstenberger), ).
Empire West Title v. Hon. talamante/dos Land Holdings 323 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2014
of Coconino (Gerstenberger), ).
Accomazzo v. Kemp 319 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Accomazzo v. Kemp 319 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ulibarri v. Superior Court (Gerstenberger)
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
Ariz. Dept. of Revenue v. Care Computer Sys., Inc., , 415 ¶ 1
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
¶ 23 , ( , ) (stating that “a waiver [of the attorney-client privilege] can be implied when a party injects a matter that, in the context of the case, creates such a need for the opponent to obtain the information allegedly protected by the privilege that it would be unfair to allow that party
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
(finding “limited waiver .
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
4 ¶ 13 Finally, because our legislature has established a physician-patient privilege, we find unpersuasive the state’s contention that “[fjour conditions must be met before a privilege can be legally recognized.” , (upholding marital privilege despite fact that one of the four *396 conditions, that injury from disclosure outweigh benefit gained by disposal of litigation, was “most seriously tested in [that] case” because to do otherwise would erode confidence in the recognized privilege).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
Young & Co., , (citing 8 John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2388, at 855 (J. McNaughton rev. ed.1961)); , review vacated as improvidently granted ( , ).
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Because an appeal could not rectify any damage that may result from the compelled disclosure of the patients' records, , , and because we find the respondent judge abused his discretion in compelling the production of the mental health records, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
¶ 18 Similarly, , which arose out of a medical malpractice *353 action by a patient against her psychiatrist based on their having engaged in allegedly noneonsensual sexual relations, Division One of this court granted partial relief in a special action challenging the trial court’s order rejecting the patien
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998