DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 273.

36 citing documents.

  • Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (requiring a showing of actual prejudice related to ex parte communication).
  • Rodrick v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Rodrick v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    at 465, ¶ 28 ( 413 (1986)).
  • Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    The court also addressed a case cited by both parties, , stating that the issue it presented "is whether or not the ex parte communications violated [Appellants'] opportunity for a fair trial with the appearance of impartiality."
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ere was not a fair trial.” ¶ 17 In its analysis, the superior court determined that the changes suggested ex parte by Church and adopted by Commissioner Ellis in her substantive ruling were “immaterial,” and the ex parte communications unrelated to the ruling “were only related to scheduling issues and are inconsequential.” The court also addressed a case cited by both parties, , stating that the issue it presented “is whether or not the ex parte communications violated [Appellants’] opportunity
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    ¶ 15 , , (rejecting argument that attorney’s acts were “privileged, unless he has engaged in malicious prosecution or abuse of process”), aff'd in part and vacated in pari on other grounds, , , (attorney may be held liable to an adverse party for lawyer’s acts of fraud or collusion).
  • Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Similarly, we have held that the amount of damages in an action based on conspiracy to commit a fraudulent conveyance are “the value of the property fraudulently transferred or the amount of the debt, whichever is less.” , ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, , see also Teeters, 172 Ariz. at 331 , 836 P.2d at 1041 (under the trust fund doctrine applicable to preferential transfers “[ljiability ...
  • Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    But “[e]ven where there is no actual bias, justice must appear fair.” Salazar, 182 Ariz. at 608 , 898 P.2d at 986 ( , cert.
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    We note, moreover, that previous case law had held that a cause of action for conspiracy to commit a fraudulent conveyance “is a cause of action apart from the UFCA.” , affd in part and vacated in part on other grounds
  • San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton 977 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1999
  • San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton 977 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1999
    They “cast doubt upon the adversary system and give the appearance of favoritism.”
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Indeed, “[t]he privilege an attorney has for his actions in representing a client is a qualified one that does not extend to the intentional torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.” , vacated in part on other grounds
  • State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “Even where there is no actual bias, justice must appear fair.” , cert.
  • Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    “When a civil wrong occurs as the result of concerted action, the participants in the *117 common plan are equally liable____ The thrust of Tovrea is that a mere agreement to do a wrong imposes no liability; an agreement plus a wrongful act may result in liability.” , affirmed
  • In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Evans 782 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1989
  • In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Evans 782 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1989
    we held that an improper ex parte conference between plaintiff, his attorney, and the trial judge did not prejudice the opposing party.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    cited Valencia for the rule on disqualification.