Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Perguson v. Tamis, 937 P.2d 347.

60 citing documents.

Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Parsons v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phillips v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
3 PHILLIPS v. CABRERA, et al. Decision of the Court Allstate Ins., ¶ 41 (App. 2006) ().
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nevens Ex Rel. Hardt v. AZHH, LLC 397 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(addressing prior rule prescribing one expert per issue and holding that the rule should not be used as “a weapon of destruction” in an “arsenal of technicalities”).
Woolbright v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woolbright v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (surviving parents of patient brought medical malpractice action on daughter's behalf).
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ARELLANO v. PRIMERICA, et al. Opinion of the Court 20
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
the trial court commits an error of law in reaching its discretionary conclusion.” , (citations omitted).
Aqua Management, Inc. v. Abdeen 227 P.3d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Aqua Management, Inc. v. Abdeen 227 P.3d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“We review the trial court’s judgment, based on its ‘interpretation of the meaning and effect of a court rule,’ de novo.” ¶ 8 , ( , ).
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, ¶ 21 , (holding trial court should not have granted motion in limine as a sanction for failure to make Rule 26.1 disclosures; sanction precluded all of plaintiffs trial evidence); , (exclusion of expert witness rendered plaintiff unable to establish causation — a necessary element of a prima facie case).
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gravel Resources of Arizona v. Hills 170 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 10 , (internal citations omitted)
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Levy v. Alfaro 160 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“Once a party has agreed or is ordered to limit his or her timely-disclosed but overlapping experts, ...
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
See Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464, ¶ 10, (interpreting statute); (interpreting court rule).
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See North Valley Emergency Specialists, , (statute); Perguson v. *446 Tamis, , (rule).
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., ¶ 13 , (interpretation of contract is subject to de novo review); , (interpretation and meaning of court rule is question of law subject to de novo review).
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Wayne Cook Enter., 196 Ariz. at 149-50, ¶¶ 11-12 , 993 P.2d at 1113-14 (formal dismissal); Montgomery Ward & Co., 176 Ariz. at 622, 863 P.2d at 914 (striking the defendant’s answer so that a default will be entered); , (excluding key evidence).
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
425, 427, (“ Interpretation of the meaning and effect of a court rule is a question of law subject to de novo review.
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, , , (“Interpretation of the meaning and effect of a court rule is a question of law subject to de novo review.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by