Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Watts v. Superior Court, 347 P.2d 565.

31 citing documents.

Bryan v. Riddel 875 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1994
Bryan v. Riddel 875 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1994
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lang v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The purpose of discovery is to avoid surprise and prevent the trial from being a “guessing game.”
Kott v. City of Phoenix 763 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1988
Kott v. City of Phoenix 763 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1988
(the purpose of discovery is to avoid the element of surprise and prevent the trial of a lawsuit from being a “guessing game”).
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
U-Totem Store v. Walker 691 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The purpose of discovery procedure under our Rules of Civil Procedure is to avoid the element of surprise and prevent the trial of a lawsuit from being a “guessing game.”
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Industrial Com'n v. Superior Court, Etc. 595 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1979
Industrial Com'n v. Superior Court, Etc. 595 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1979
451 (1947); , and citations; , ” Parties may, as a general rule, discover matters not privileged which are relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending action or which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible ev
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
Zimmerman v. Superior Court, supra; P.2d 624 (1964); , Dean v. Superior Court, supra
Tury v. Superior Court 505 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tury v. Superior Court 505 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the Arizona Supreme Court explicitly rejected, as a justification for delaying discovery, the argument that recovery of a party’s prior statements might cause him to change subsequent testimony or render the statement worthless for impeachment purposes.
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
451 (1947); , and citations
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.
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
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Zimmerman v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1965
Zimmerman v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1965
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts 398 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1965
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts 398 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1965