Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court, 904 P.2d 1286.

40 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
390, n.1 (App. 2001) (discussing statutory exceptions to physician-patient privilege); ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 1999) (whether duty to report under statute makes physician an agent of the state); (noting psychologist had duty to report evaluation of child for “sexual disorder” under statute); (medical records relating to physician’s treatment of alleged abuser not protected by privilege under statute); A criminal statute, despite being “silent on the issue of civil liability,” can establish a civil duty i
State v. Chalice Renee Zeitner 436 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2019
State v. Chalice Renee Zeitner 436 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2019
466 (App. 1995) (holding that the physician-patient privilege did not shield the medical records of a mother charged with murdering her infant); (“[T]he public’s interest in protecting victims outweighs the privacy interest reflected in the physician-patie
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
(holding that the physician-patient privilege did not shield the medical records of a mother charged with murdering her infant); Benton, 182 Ariz. at 468, 897 P.2d at 1354 (“We conclude that the privilege does not apply under the circumstances of this case because the public’s int
Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that the physician-patient privilege did not shield the medical records of a mother charged with murdering her infant); Benton, 182 Ariz. at 468 , 897 P.2d at 1354 (“We conclude that the privilege does not apply under the circumstances of this case because the public’s in
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
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
(stating that statute abrogates physician-patient privilege in cases involving abuse of a child); -95, ¶ 11 , -66 (App. 2001) (stating that physician-patient privilege is not absolute as legislature has created exceptions).
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
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc. 88 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
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
462, 466, (abrogation of privileges has “not been narrowly inter preted” ).
Siporin v. Carrington 23 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Siporin v. Carrington 23 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ct., , Reynolds, 170 Ariz. at 234 , 823 P.2d at 682 ; A.R.S.
Milner v. Colonial Trust Co. 6 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Milner v. Colonial Trust Co. 6 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Reynolds, 170 Ariz. at 234 , 823 P.2d at 682 ; see also *27 A.R.S.
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”).
Faz v. Ford Motor Credit Co. 953 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Faz v. Ford Motor Credit Co. 953 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
When interpreting a statute, the primary objective is to “give effect to the legislative intent.”
Clark Equip. v. PROP. & CAS. INS. GUAR. 943 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997