Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue, 787 P.2d 1051.

69 citing documents.

Hendershot v. Whyte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hendershot v. Whyte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(defining frivolous filings as those filed for an improper purpose or indisputably without merit).
Danko v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Danko v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, (a frivolous appeal occurs when the “issues raised were not supported by any reasonable legal theory” resulting in the appeal being “totally and completely without merit”); see also Reash, 1 CA-CV 24-0301, 2024 WL 4705801, at *4-5, ¶¶ 16-20 (this Court highlights six instances where Danko’s claims were dis
Rynn v. Uhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Rynn v. Uhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, –58 (1989) (noting that sanctions under ARCAP 25 are discretionary).
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Motors Acceptance Corp., and we impose these sanctions “with great reservation,” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Rev., (quotation omitted).
Link v. Valdez-Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Link v. Valdez-Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Cook v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Cook v. McAllister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Hoyer v. Dougherty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hoyer v. Dougherty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, (internal quotation marks omitted).
Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Nieblas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Hernandez v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hernandez v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Pursuant to ARCAP 25, we have the authority to impose sanctions against an attorney, including payment of attorneys’ fees, “that are appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and to discourage similar conduct in the future.” We take great caution in imposing ARCAP 25 sanctions, Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, but find them appropriate here given counsel’s disregard for the rules of this court.
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Arizona Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Schreiner v. Schreiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schreiner v. Schreiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Rev.
Tsanos v. Zistatsis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tsanos v. Zistatsis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moreover, we impose Rule 25 sanctions “with great reservation.” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bank of Ny v. Dodev 433 P.3d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, ).
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
pds/zurich v. Silberschlag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pds/zurich v. Silberschlag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Motors Acceptance Corp., and we impose ARCAP 25 sanctions with “great reservation,” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
reasonable penalties or damages.” We impose sanctions under Rule 25 only ‘“with great reservation,’” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, , and we decline to do so when “the issues raised are supportable by any reasonable legal theory, or if a colorable legal argument is presented about which reasonable attorneys could differ.”
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
4501 NORTHPOINT LP v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 215 Ariz. 2006
individuals faced in contesting government actions, magnified by the disparity between the resources and expertise of the government and individuals.” Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, (quoting Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, 163 Ariz. 255, 258, 1 Such actions include the defense of civil actions, court proceedings to review state agency decisions, declaratory judgment actions regarding state rulemaking, special actions brought to challenge an action by the State against
4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County 105 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
From the beginning, the policy underlying section 12-348 has been “to reduce the economic deterrents individuals faced in contesting governmental actions.” Arizona Tax Research Ass’n v. Department of Revenue
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
See Arizona Tax Research Ass’n v. DOR, , Cortaro Waters Users’ Ass’n, 148 Ariz. at 319, 714 P.2d at 812.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. Department of Revenue
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
See Arizona Tax Research Ass’n v. Department of Revenue, -59 , -55 (1989).
Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas 857 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993