DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Precision Components v. Harrison, Harper, 880 P.2d 1098.

25 citing documents.

  • SHUMATE v. DAVIS/BROADBENT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C.
  • Fiori v. Lanini-Fiori Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Fiori v. Lanini-Fiori Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C.
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Precision Components v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., -57, -03 (App. 1993).
  • Marquez v. Ortega 296 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Marquez v. Ortega 296 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    “[T]he imposition of sanctions should be preceded by some form of notice and opportunity to be heard on the propriety of imposing the sanctions.” Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , see also Lund, 227 Ariz. at 582, ¶ 37 , 261 P.3d at 466 (citation omitted) (explaining that “the accused must be given an opportunity to respond, either orally or in writing, to justify his or her actions”).
  • Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Preci *579 sion Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C.
  • John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    It asserts, “The inherent authority of a court to sanction a lawyer for bad faith conduct—independent of rules allowing for those sanctions—is well established,” Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., Sallomi v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 421 U.S. at 258-59.
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Grant 213 P.3d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Grant 213 P.3d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    See Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (appeal of order imposing sanctions on counsel).
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Co., 11 F.3d 450 , 461-62 (4th *150 Cir.1998) (same); see also Phoenix Newspapers, , (“[T]his Court has recognized that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in the courts.”); cf. Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (trial court has inherent authority to sanction misconduct of attorneys appearing before it).
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    See Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C.
  • Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    Finally, this court affirmed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions against both parties’ counsel in Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , because they had violated the Uniform Practice Rules by not citing to the record for the location of facts related to a summary judgment motion, despite having “submitted over 3500 pages of exhibits in support of or in opposition to this motion.” ¶ 8 Appellate courts that have re
  • Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Hmielewski v. Maricopa County 960 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (imposition of sanctions under disciplinary rule and court’s inherent powers to sanction attorney misconduct was within sound judicial discretion of trial court); James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection
  • ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards 952 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Tierney believed that the trial court should have ordered that ABC’s attorneys refund any attorneys’ fees that ABC actually paid in excess of $1,900.00 pursuant to Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., , (court could prohibit counsel from charging attorneys’ fees for an inappropriately filed motion for summary judgment.)
  • In re Radacosky 905 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • In re Radacosky 905 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    See generally Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C.