Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483.

136 citing documents.

Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
4 ¶ 16 , (“The degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.”) (citation omitted).
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn 290 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
17 ¶27 We also reject Blackburn’s argument that in Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85, our supreme court “implicitly rejected” Cornerstone’s argument that “§ 12-2604 applies in APSA cases.” The issue the court stated it was addressing in Seisinger was whether “§ 12-2604(A), which governs proof of the standard of care in medical malpractice cases, violates the separation of power
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
holding § 12-2604 did not violate separation of powers, "was wrongly decided.” However, he acknowledges that issue "is a question for the Arizona Supreme Court.”
Benkendorf v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 269 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Benkendorf v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 269 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 38 , (recognizing requirement that expert testimony in a medical malpractice action is a substantive component of *531 the common law reflecting “a policy decision ...
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP 254 P.3d 360 Ariz. 2011
¶ 24, ¶ 20, (“Court rules may not ‘abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights of a litigant.’” (quoting A.R.S.
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, the definition of procedural versus substantive rights “has proven elusive.” ¶ 29 , Shane B., 198 Ariz. at 88, ¶ 9 , 7 P.3d at 97 .
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Lewis 244 P.3d 561 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lewis 244 P.3d 561 Ariz. 2011
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(4) (giving this Court “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court”); ¶ 26, (“[O]nce we determine that a statute conflicting 5 with a court-promulgated rule is ‘substantive,’ the statute must prevail.”).
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“Rules of evidence „have generally been regarded as procedural in nature.‟” quoting State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
P. 18.4; (supreme court recognizes “statutory enactments that supplement rather than conflict with rules” promulgated by judicial branch).
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000076 244 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
1 *133 ¶ 7 “Determining whether a statute unduly infringes on [the court’s] rulemaking power requires analysis of the particular rule and statute said to be in conflict.”
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶¶ 27-28 , (holding while courts make law through the development of the common law, judicially developed substantive principles are subordinated to contrary acts adopted by the legislature; "when a substantive statute conflicts with the common law, the statute prevails under a separation
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 1-244 under which a statute may nonetheless have “retroactive effect if it is merely procedural.” ¶ 43 , ( ¶ 8 , ).
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We note that the Arizona Supreme Court has recently issued Seisinger v. Siebel, M.D., , 11 19, which holds that while A.R.S.