DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., 211 P.3d 16.

66 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶21 Constructive fraud is “a breach of legal or equitable duty” if that breach “tends to deceive others, violates public or private confidences, or injures public interests.” Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 53 (App. 2009).
  • Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2009).
  • State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2009).
  • Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., -48, ¶¶ 14-17, 22-23 (App. 2009) (holding that an order of dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for violating court orders was appealable under Section 12-2101 because it decided and disposed of the case on its merits).
  • Rgs Diamonds v. Tal Designs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Rgs Diamonds v. Tal Designs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶¶ 45–46 (App. 2009).
  • Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-315(A)(5); Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., –50, ¶ 29 (App. 2009).
  • Blansette v. Cruger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Blansette v. Cruger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 53 (App. 2009) (noting that a claim for constructive fraud requires a showing of a fiduciary or confidential relationship).
  • Shields v. Ogden-Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Shields v. Ogden-Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 40 (App. 2009) (sanctions imposed for violating a court order are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  • Bade v. Powar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Bade v. Powar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., -56, ¶ 53 (App. 2009).
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
  • Goodard v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Goodard v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 12- 2101(A)(2) as a special order after judgment, but only if it raises “different issues than those that would be raised by appealing the underlying judgment.”); Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2009) jurisdiction to rule on this motion.
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nardini-Smith v. Jolly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 48 (App. 2009); Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 113, ¶ 9.
  • Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2009).
  • Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Wiltbank v. Wiltbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    3 WILTBANK v. WILTBANK Decision of the Court ¶10 Moreover, even assuming the court had discretion to impose sanctions under § 25-408 or otherwise for Father’s failure to comply with a parenting time order, see Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 37 (App. 2009) (recognizing “[a] court’s inherent authority to sanction parties for failing to comply with its orders”), the children’s best interests are paramount in determining what type of sanctions, if any, were warranted.
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2009) ().
  • Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 40 (App. 2009).
  • Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Cuen v. Cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2009) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
  • Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “We review the imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.” Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 40 (App. 2009).
  • Ignatova v. Ignatov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ignatova v. Ignatov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 53 (App. 2009).
  • Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 40 (App. 2009).
  • Powell v. Pac. Specialty Ins. Co. 415 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Powell v. Pac. Specialty Ins. Co. 415 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    270 , 272, see also Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., , ¶ 14, , 24 (App. 2009).
  • Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Petrocelli v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2009).
  • Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., n.3, 148, ¶¶ 13, 21, n.3, 26 (App. 2009).
  • Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., –56 ¶ 53, –34 (App. 2009).
  • State v. Byrd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Byrd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., ¶ 40, ¶ 2, (“Sanctions are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”).