Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dean v. Superior Court, 324 P.2d 764.

69 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1986
451 (1947) , employed in Rule 26(b)(3), however Arizona has always conformed to the Hickman rule of discovery of an attorney’s trial preparation materials.
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Klaiber v. Orzel 714 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
the supreme court held that written statements obtained from witnesses which were material to the issues raised by the pleadings were not immune from discovery as work product of the attorney, provided that the “good cause” requirement was met.
Helge v. Druke 666 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Helge v. Druke 666 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Granger v. Wisner 656 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1982
Granger v. Wisner 656 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1982
Silver v. Rose 661 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Camelback Contractors, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 608 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Camelback Contractors, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 608 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
the court stated: “The Arizona cases beginning with Dean [v. Superior Court, , ] to [State ex rel.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Veliz 571 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Veliz 571 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
: “ ‘It is an essential element of a motion to produce documents that those documents be designated with some reasonable degree of particularity and with such a description that will apprise a man of ordinary intelligence of the document desired.’ ‘A blanket request for all written statements, all
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
Jolly v. Superior Court of Pinal County 540 P.2d 658 Ariz. 1975
Although this Court does possess the power to prevent enforcement of an unauthorized and nonappealable discovery order, , we reiterate our previous statements that this power shall be exercised only in “rare” cases, as a matter of sound discretion according to the nature and circumstances of the case.
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Tucson Medical Center Incorporated v. Rowles 520 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Rule 26(b)(1), 16 A.R.S.
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hine v. Superior Court 504 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
216 , , cf. Scottsdale Jaycees v. Superior Court, 17 *570 Ariz.App.
Green v. Thompson 499 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Green v. Thompson 499 P.2d 715 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
In re West’s Adoption, , , , Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz.App.
Cornet Stores v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 492 P.2d 1191 Ariz. 1972
Cornet Stores v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 492 P.2d 1191 Ariz. 1972
where there were blanket requests for all documents and, hence, were too sweeping and undetailed to require compliance.
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Phelps Dodge Corporation v. Superior Court, 7 Ariz.App.
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
MacDonald v. Hyder 471 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958); , State Farm Ins.
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958) ; Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Thoresen v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 461 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Thoresen v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 461 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958); see also Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Ariz.App.
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Ariz.App.
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Pedro v. Glenn 446 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Maricopa County v. Peterson 439 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Maricopa County v. Peterson 439 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
and State Farm Insur *365 , are controlling.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court in and for County of Cochise 438 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court in and for County of Cochise 438 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
73 A.L.R.2d 1 (1958), blazed a trail in this state for reviewing the granting of discovery by writ of prohibition.
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967