Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alexander v. Superior Court, 685 P.2d 1309.

80 citing documents.

Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(in case of a conflict, the lawyer owes primary responsibility to a long-standing client; the other client should obtain other counsel).
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
(party divulges secrets to lawyer to secure advice).
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432 872 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432 872 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
(“Only in extreme circumstances should a party to a lawsuit be allowed to interfere with the attorney-client relationship of his opponent.”) If there were conflicts, it was for the children to assert them.
Towne Development of Chandler, Inc. v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Towne Development of Chandler, Inc. v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
5 We consider whether Towne or Bank, who were never Foster’s clients, have standing to move to disqualify AK & L. “An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when the party divulging confidences and secrets to an attorney believes that he is approaching the attorney in a professional capacity with the intent to secure legal advice.” , (quoting Trinity Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. G & L Ambulance Servs., Inc., 578 F.Supp.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Finally, , which set forth several considerations which should be used when making a decision concerning disqualification.
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
our supreme court held that when considering a motion for disqualification based upon the appearance of impropriety, the trial court should consider: (1) whether the motion was made for purposes of harassment; (2) whether the party seeking disqualification will be damaged if the motion is not g
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
see also Cottonwood Estates, Inc. v. Paradise Builders, Inc.
Foulke v. Knuck 784 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Foulke v. Knuck 784 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Actions 1 and 3,17B A.R.S.
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
The appropriate test is a subjective one, where ‘the court looks to the nature of the work performed and to the circumstances under which the confidences were divulged.’ , citing Developments of the Law —Conflicts of Interest in the Legal Profession, 94 HARV.L.REV.
Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
The appropriate test is a subjective one, where “the court *300 looks to the nature of the work performed and to the circumstances under which the confidences were divulged.” , citing Developments of the Law—Conflicts of Interest in the Legal Profession, 94 HARV.L.REV.
Sellers v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 742 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sellers v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 742 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gomez v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PINAL CTY. 717 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1986
Gomez v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PINAL CTY. 717 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1986
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985