Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bird v. Rothman, 627 P.2d 1097.

25 citing documents.

Lampe v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lampe v. Lampe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(in a malicious prosecution case, “[a]ll issues of a party’s reasonable belief and prudence in bringing an action are to be decided by the court.
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(describing the jury’s function as “determin[ing] the actual facts of what the prosecuting party or attorneys performed in the way of investigation and research”).
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(simple negligence an improper standard upon which to base liability of an attorney to an adverse party).
Smith v. Lucia 842 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Lucia 842 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Carroll, 112 Ariz. at 598 , 545 *295 P.2d at 414; 6 , cert.
Roberts v. Kino Community Hospital 767 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Roberts v. Kino Community Hospital 767 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
is not frivolous merely because facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery.” , , cert.
Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
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
157 Ariz. at 411 , 758 P.2d at 1313 , , cert.
Morn v. City of Phoenix 730 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Morn v. City of Phoenix 730 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Two previous decisions of this court, , , cert.
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
that under those facts the claim may be valid under the applicable law____” Whether probable cause exists is a matter of law for the court, , and we need not, therefore, defer to the trial court’s findings.
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sarwark Motor Sales, , , , cert.
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Nienstedt v. Wetzel 651 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by