Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY., 700 P.2d 1335.

38 citing documents.

Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A party violates Rule 11 by filing a pleading with a claim or defense that he should have known to be “insubstantial, groundless, frivolous, or otherwise unjustified.” (en banc).
Dawn v. Yuma's Sunset Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dawn v. Yuma's Sunset Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kostadinova v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“An attorney is obligated to review and examine his [or her] position as facts of the case are developed, and .
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency 388 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 113 In general, an attorney violates Rule 11 by filing a document that he or she knows or should know asserts a position that “is insubstantial, frivolous, groundless or otherwise unjustified.” James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., , ( , ).
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
reasonable investigation, that a colorable claim exists.” , (emphasis omitted).
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Friedman 177 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ct., -42 , -42 (1985) (An attorney violates Rule 11 when a pleading is filed that he or she "knew, or should have known by such investigation of fact and law as was reasonable and feasible ...
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
before discovery.” , (quoting Chipanno v. Champion Int’l Corp., 702 F.2d 827 , 831 (9th Cir.1983)).
Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C. 903 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C. 903 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
iolated when “the party or counsel knew, or should have known by such investigation of fact and law as was reasonable and feasible under all the circumstances, that the claim or defense was insubstantial, groundless, frivolous, or otherwise unjustified” or by “the filing of plead *44 ings for an improper purpose such as those intended to harass, coerce, extort, or delay.” -42 , -42 (1985).
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 866 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection 868 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection 868 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bryant v. Bloch Companies 800 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bryant v. Bloch Companies 800 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Nevertheless, , an Arizona trial court may not impose sanctions under Rule 11 without first considering the merits of the underlying claim.
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
We granted review because we conclude that relief by appeal is inadequate under the circumstances of this case, , and because the issue presented is one of general and statewide importance, see Summerfield, v. Superior Court
Nalbandian v. Superior Court 786 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Nalbandian v. Superior Court 786 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
§ 12-2106 and of Rule 25, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, pertaining to damages for frivolous appeals or appeals for delay, shall apply to special actions.”)
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
our supreme court held that Rule 11 is violated when the party or counsel knew, or should have known by such investigation of fact and law as was reasonable and feasible under all the circumstances, that the claim or defense was insubstantial, groundless, frivolous, or otherwise unjustified.
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987