Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Buell v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 391 P.2d 919.

28 citing documents.

State v. Zeitner 418 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zeitner 418 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
("A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law.") (quoting Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933)).
Hammerman v. Northern Trust Co. 329 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hammerman v. Northern Trust Co. 329 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
501 (“The common law — as interpreted by Arizona courts in the light of reason and experience — governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: [1] the United States or Arizona Constitution; [2] an applicable statute; or [3] rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.”); , (adopting crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege); Benton v. Superior Court (State), , (“Not every exception to a privilege established by statute is legislative in origin.
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“[T]he attorney-client privilege is defeated by a showing of prima facie fraud on the part of the client.”)
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pearce v. Stone 720 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Our supreme court’s , is dispositive of the issue.
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 625 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1981
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 625 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1981
-69 , (recognizing that privilege covers documents delivered to attorney to secure legal advice, but not if delivered in furtherance of fraud or crime).
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
Lawrence v. Valley National Bank 478 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1970
Eyman v. Superior Court in and for County of Pinal 448 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Eyman v. Superior Court in and for County of Pinal 448 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The appropriateness of appellate intervention by extraordinary writ is indicated by the cases of State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two
O'Brien v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa Co. 435 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1967
O'Brien v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa Co. 435 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1967
Goodman v. State 393 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1964
Goodman v. State 393 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1964