Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Willey v. Whitman, 370 P.2d 273.

44 citing documents.

Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heroyan-Hamayak v. Hamayak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brentwood v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Brentwood v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(to justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but it must be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the person assigning this error).
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Fields 75 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
Creach v. Angulo 941 P.2d 224 Ariz. 1997
see also Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 27 (prohibiting reversal of a cause for technical error *215 in pleading or proceedings).
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
Creach v. Angulo 925 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Creach v. Angulo 925 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
see also Ariz. Const. art 6, § 27 (prohibiting reversal of a cause for technical error in pleading or proceedings).
State ex rel Miller v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State ex rel Miller v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
and United States v. Meyer, 398 F.2d 66 (9th Cir.1968), in holding that a trial expert’s reports are discoverable.
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
The leading Arizona case on this point is State v. Whitman, 1 , in which an interrogatory requesting the names and addresses of all individuals who had been employed to appraise or who had appraised the property in question was found to be too broad because it included persons “who might have been consulted but whose testimony [was] not intended to be used.”
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Phoenix Western Holding Corp. v. Gleeson, 18 Ariz.App.
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Dykeman v. Ashton, 8 Ariz.App.
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Pima County 625 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Pima County 625 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
This issue has been decided in favor of appellees in State v. Whitman, 91 Ariz. *297 120, and United States v. Meyer, 398 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1968).
Ott v. Samaritan Health Service 622 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Ott v. Samaritan Health Service 622 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson, 18 Ariz.App.
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
Willey v.] Whitman, [ , ] to our most recent pronouncement in State Farm [ , ] clearly do not give immunity to evidence because it may be used for impeachment purposes.
Penaskovic v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 513 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Penaskovic v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 513 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
E. A. Tovrea & , 206 P. 595 (1922); , 247 P. 122 (1926)
Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Phoenix Western Holding Corporation v. Gleeson 500 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 498 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Transamerica Title Insurance 498 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
our Supreme Court held that in a condemnation case the liberal discovery rules pertaining to attorney work product were fully applicable.
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
at 123 , at 276 (1962), in quoting from Hickman v. Taylor, supra, that: “It seems clear and long has been recognized that discovery should provide a party access to anything that is evidence in his case.” Particularly applicable to the issues in this case is the statement of the court in Columbia Broadcas
Employment Security Commission v. Doughty 478 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Employment Security Commission v. Doughty 478 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Sundt v. Farley 470 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sundt v. Farley 470 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
a landmark case in the field of discovery in condemnation action.
Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Kerley Chemical Corp. v. Producers Cotton Oil Co. 406 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Kerley Chemical Corp. v. Producers Cotton Oil Co. 406 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Zimmerman v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1965
Zimmerman v. Superior Court 402 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1965
we held that demonstrative evidence in the form of exhibits prepared by counsel for trial is not work product.