Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carlton v. Emhardt, 674 P.2d 907.

40 citing documents.

Ryan v. Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation,” ¶ 19 , (quotation omitted), and is intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial, , 356
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[T]rial by ambush is a tactic no longer countenanced in Arizona courts.”).
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Recchia cites no rule or other authority that prescribes a length of time for either an initial or rebuttal closing statement in a criminal trial, and the civil cases on which he relies, P.2d 907 (App. 1983), P.2d 173 (1975), are unavailing.
Calisto Mariko Wells v. State of Arizona 297 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Calisto Mariko Wells v. State of Arizona 297 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
And this court has noted “trial by ambush 7 is a tactic no longer countenanced in Arizona courts.” Carlton v. Emhardt, 138 Ariz. 353, 355, (noting “amended [civil disclosure] rules attempt to change a culture of advocacy in which ‘hiding the pea’ has too frequently been the objective”).
Heidbreder v. Heidbreder 284 P.3d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Heidbreder v. Heidbreder 284 P.3d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 37 , *129 1049 (App.2007).
Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers 166 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Leathers v. Leathers 166 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.”
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation otherwise modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice.”).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation otherwise modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice.”).
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
1 (pretrial order shall control subsequent course of action but may be modified to prevent manifest injustice); , (same); S. Pac.
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(a joint pre-trial memorandum that omitted a lack of personal jurisdiction defense removed the defense from the case).
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of litigation unless otherwise modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice).
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., , (filing of answer without having been served with process constituted voluntary appearance); , (participating in joint pretrial statement without mentioning defense of insufficient service of process constituted voluntary appearance, though defense had earlier been pleaded in answer).
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We will not disturb an order granting a new trial, particularly one based on Rule 59(a)(8), “unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the decision of the trial judge is a manifest abuse of discretion.”
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dini 821 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dini 821 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc. 735 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc. 735 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , P.2d 907 (App.1983).
MacConnell v. Maricopa County Medical Society 724 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
MacConnell v. Maricopa County Medical Society 724 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 682 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984