DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Granger v. Wisner, 656 P.2d 1238.

24 citing documents.

  • Gelvin v. Hon. parker/gelvin Ariz. 2026
  • JUDICIAL WATCH INC v. KRISTEN MAYES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    (attorney-client privilege only protects communications, not identity of parties).
  • Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), (c)(1), and (c)(4)
  • State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -80, -41 (1982) (privilege “does not extend to facts which are not part of the communication” such as dates and number of contacts between attorney and client).
  • Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    privilege is intended to encourage the client in need of legal advice to tell the lawyer the truth” and is therefore “central to the delivery of legal services in this country.”); , 522-23 n. 11, -68 (1988) (stating that the attoxmey-client privilege exists, in part, to “foster the public’s confidence in the legal profession”); , (“The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage a client to confide in his or her attorney all the information necessary in order that the attorney may p
  • Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    -80 , -41 (1982) (finding no protection for “facts which are not part of the communication between lawyer and client,” such as the fact that client consulted an attorney, the identity of the client, and the dates and number of visits).
  • 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
    See Ulibarri, 184 Ariz. at 385 , 909 P.2d at 452 (“[T]he fact that a client has consulted an attorney, the identity of the client, and the dates and number of visits to the attorney are normally outside the scope and purpose of the privilege.”) .( , ).
  • Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINO 909 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
    See, , (doctor-patient privilege does not prevent a party from calling an adversary’s expert to testify and examining the expert about his or her opinions and the observations, knowledge, information, and theories on which the opinions are based).
  • Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the supreme court vacated the opinion of *402 the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court which had granted judgment for the defendant, a plastic surgeon, after allowing a physician who had previously been consulted by the plaintiff to testify at trial on behalf of the defendant.
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    See footnote 1; , (discussing the similar attorney-client privilege that applies in civil matters pursuant to A.R.S.
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
  • Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
  • Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
    -80 , -41 (1982); McCORMICK, EVIDENCE § 89 at 213 (3d ed. 1984).