Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy., 670 P.2d 725.

84 citing documents.

Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
This discretion “includes the right to decide controverted factual issues, to draw inferences where conflicting inferences are possible and to weigh competing interests.”
Apollo Education v. National Union Fire Insurance Ariz. 2021
Apollo Education v. National Union Fire Insurance Ariz. 2021
See, Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Ins.
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Varela v. Fca US Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Varela v. Fca US Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Otto v. Otto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The accountant-client privilege extends “to communications between accountant and client when those communications pertain to the client’s financial affairs,” but “does not apply to communications received by the client from an accountant employed as an expert to examine the affairs of a non-client.”
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Gullett ex rel. Estate of Gullett v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. 390 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(“[I]n matters of discovery a trial court has broad discretion which will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse.”); see also State Farm Mut.
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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
(relevancy requirement at discovery stage “more loosely construed than that required at trial” and need only be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”).
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Saint-George v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
P. 26(b)(3); Brown v. Superior Court (Cont’l Nat’l Assurance, Inc.), , 337 n. 8, , 735 n. 8 (1983).
MM&A PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION 316 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
MM&A PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION 316 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The court’s discretion in matters of discovery includes “the right to decide controverted factual issues, to draw inferences where conflicting inferences are possible and to weigh competing interests.” -32, -30 (1983).
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
451 (1947)); , (noting purposes of protection afforded attorney’s preparatory materials include maintaining the adversarial trial process and ensuring that attorneys are adequately prepared without fear that their efforts will be freely disclosed to opposing counsel).
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“[I]n matters of discovery a trial court has broad discretion which will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse.”
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
of any facts to support his jurisdictional argument, Holland contends “[tjhe trial court abused its discretion in denying limited discovery into [Hurley’s] online commercial activity to establish a factual basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.” “[Ijn matters of discovery a trial court has broad discretion which will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse.” , see also Cohen, , 13 P.3d at 762 .
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe 170 P.3d 712 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
“The requirement of relevancy at the discovery stage is more loosely construed than that required at trial.”
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
330 n. 1, , 728 n. 1 (1983), our supreme court stated in dictum that, should plaintiffs coverage claim “terminate adversely to [him], one would assume that the bad-faith claim must fall,” and that “[o]ne could plausibly argue ...
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
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
(“No matter how the test is defined, bad faith is a question of reasonableness under the circumstances.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by