Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court in and for County of Cochise, 438 P.2d 424.

26 citing documents.

Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court , , 281, abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ott
Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
12 (Rule 36 “provides a built-in sanction for failing to answer”), P.2d 305 (App. 1990), and allows a court to impose expenses upon a party who fails to properly respond, see Sears Roebuck & Co., 127 Ariz. at 436, 621 P.2d a
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Schamanek
Burton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 801 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 801 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
of Cochise County, , this court held that: [Ajppeal is not an adequate remedy for denial of discovery because a litigant has a right to: ‘...
Warrilow v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 689 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Warrilow v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 689 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Even assuming that the real parties in interest have adequately established that the questions asked by the insurer during the sworn examination gave Jones reason *254 able cause to apprehend danger that his answers might prove incriminatory, , it is clear that the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment had no application to the proceeding.
Flagler v. Derickson 655 P.2d 349 Ariz. 1982
Flagler v. Derickson 655 P.2d 349 Ariz. 1982
Parker v. HENNEPIN CTY. DIST. CT., 4TH JUD. DIST. 285 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1979
Parker v. Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District 285 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1979
Gagnon v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Gagnon v. Superior Court 565 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Gilbert v. McGhee 517 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Gilbert v. McGhee 517 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
a factual situation remarkably similar to the instant one, we analyzed the “waiver” problem.- It was contended there, as here, that prior testimony on deposition precluded subsequent assertion of the privilege when additional discovery procedures were attempted.
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Industrial Commission v. Superior Court, 5 Ariz.App.
Thoresen v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 461 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Thoresen v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 461 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County 461 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958); , Industrial Commission v. Superior Court, 5 Ariz.App.