Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jones v. Buchanan, 868 P.2d 993.

36 citing documents.

Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
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
Good cause for untimely disclosure is not established when “it is solely the result of a failure to engage in timely trial preparation.”
Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(“Traditionally, this court is loath to become involved in a pretrial discovery dispute.”); see also Ariz. Appellate Handbook, § 7.3.1 at 7-9 (Hon.
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cosper v. Rea Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 250 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Special action jurisdiction also is appropriate when the issue involves interpretation or application of civil procedure rules, and when the respondent judge’s alleged abuse of discretion concerns “a pure issue of law that may be decided without further factual inquiry.” Winner Enterprises, (motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24
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
Waddell v. Titan Ins. Co., Inc. 88 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Distinguished Waddell v. Titan Ins. Co., Inc. 88 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
one of the proposed experts had never been disclosed in writing and the other expert’s opinions were not disclosed until just before trial.
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
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(trial court’s failure to apply court procedural rule constituted failure to perform duty required by law, warranting special action relief).
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 15 Arizona courts interpret Rule 26.1 in accordance with its plain and obvious meaning, and “in harmony with [its] underlying philosophy and purpose,”
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
which stands for the proposition that disclosure of new witnesses just prior to trial may be prejudicial enough to require their exclusion.
Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Valler v. Lee 949 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See generally Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole, , , , , (trial court properly rejected proposed amendment which would have added a new design defect theory seven weeks before trial).
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Allstate Insurance v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Allstate Insurance v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Given the dramatic effect of Rule 26.1 on pre-trial discovery practice, and the harshness of the mandatory sanction of Rule 26.1(c), we consider the issue presented to be of statewide importance, even though the same basic issue was presented, and in our opinion correctly decided
Bryan v. Riddel 875 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1994
Bryan v. Riddel 875 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1994
where the rule changes occurred just after the suit was initiated, and no disclosure statement was ever filed by plaintiffs.