Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County, 540 P.2d 658.

39 citing documents.

Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Ct., (stating that special action relief over discovery issues “shall be exercised only in ‘rare’ cases, as a matter of sound discretion according to the nature and circumstances of the case”).
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
v. Superior Court, see, (stating that special- action relief over discovery issues “shall be exercised only in ‘rare’ cases, as a matter of sound discretion according to the nature and circumstances of the case”).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Holt v. Baum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Holt v. Baum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[T]he courts have, on limited occasions, restricted discovery on grounds of irrelevancy.”).
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(“The fact that this Court does not routinely entertain petitions for extraordinary relief on discovery matters is apparent by the paucity of occasions in the past 5 STATE v. CHOPRA Opinion of the Court
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
at 1262; (3) whether protective devices limiting the disclosure of the information (such as in-camera inspections and “need-to-know” orders) can significantly reduce the harm from dissemination, , (4) whether the information can be obtained from “some other source that is either more convenient [or] less burdensome,” see Ariz. R. Civ.
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Jurisdiction ¶6 Although we do not “routinely entertain petitions for extraordinary relief on discovery matters,” special action jurisdiction may be appropriate because a discovery order is not appealable.
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
While this court does not routinely grant special action jurisdiction in discovery matters, , we accept jurisdiction in this case because “the subsequent course of litigation may be vitally affected by an erroneous order.” , see also Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Although appellate intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not routinely exercised in discovery matters, , we believe the circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Weaver 680 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Weaver 680 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1983
Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
There being no remedy by appeal and the issues raised in this special action being sufficiently important to justify review, , , we accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(4).
Western Waste Service Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court 584 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1978
Western Waste Service Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court 584 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1978
Rogers v. Fenton 564 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Rogers v. Fenton 564 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
1 Although appellate intervention by way of extraordinary relief is rarely exercised in discovery matters, , we believe the circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of our discretion.
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Tucson Medical Center, Incorporated v. Misevch 545 P.2d 958 Ariz. 1976
Tucson Medical Center, Incorporated v. Misevch 545 P.2d 958 Ariz. 1976
Butler v. Doyle 544 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1975
Butler v. Doyle 544 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1975
Co., 297 F.2d 921 (4th Cir. 1962)