Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb, 862 P.2d 870.

37 citing documents.

Gelvin v. Hon. parker/gelvin Ariz. 2026
In Re: Mh2023-004502 Ariz. 2026
In Re: Mh2023-004502 Ariz. 2026
v. Goodfarb, (explaining that “there must be a[] [behavioral health professional-client] relationship before the privilege exists” (emphasis added)); (“When considering whether a confidence was received, we must first determine if a[] [behavioral health professiona
Karen Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Oversight 515 P.3d 1275 Ariz. 2022
Karen Fann v. Hon. kemp/american Oversight 515 P.3d 1275 Ariz. 2022
v. Goodfarb, –02 (1993).
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jf v. Hon. como/cf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Goodfarb, “an uncertain privilege is tantamount to no 18 J.F.
State of Arizona Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Adleman 503 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Adleman 503 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2022
v. Goodfarb, ); Warner, 150 Ariz. at 127 (“[I]f an accused is to derive the full benefits of his right to counsel, he must have the assurance of confidentiality and privacy of communication with his attorney.”).
Gaslight Inn v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gaslight Inn v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
in which the supreme court addressed the scope of the attorney-client privilege in the corporate context.
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
In Re: Mh 2019-004895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: Mh 2019-004895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
US Bank v. Reynolds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
US Bank v. Reynolds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Goodfarb, (noting that a corporation “can only act through its agents”); Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C., ¶ 26 (App. 2011) (as amended).
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
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
Samaritan Found, v. Goodfarb, , (“[A] client who has a duty to disclose facts in discovery or otherwise is not relieved of that duty simply because those same facts have been communicated to a lawyer.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, 1994 Ariz. Sess.
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Goodfarb, superseded by statute on other grounds, 1994 Ariz. Sess.
Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See, e.g., Samaritan Found, v. Goodfarb, , (“The privilege is intended to encourage the client in need of legal advice to tell the lawyer the truth” and is therefore “central to the delivery of legal services in this country.”); , 522-23 n. 11, -68 (1988) (stating that the attox
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
v. Goodfarb, (Samaritan II), P.2d 593 (App. 1992) (Samaritan I); see also Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390 (privilege protects “not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant 265 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
*296 ¶ 16 Like other legal entities, a city “can only act through its agents.” Samaritan Found, v. Goodfarb
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Because we conclude that the trial court properly interpreted Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13^1062(2) (Supp. 2002) by applying our supreme court’s interpretation of the corporate attorney-client privilege set forth in Samaritan Foundation *227 v. Goodfarb, , we deny relief.
Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smart Industries Corp., Mfg. v. Superior Court 876 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-33 , -600 (App.1992), vacated in part on other grounds, , (“a lawyer does not forfeit the attorney-client privilege by receiving otherwise privileged client communications through the conduit of a properly supervised paralegal employee”).
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
In the criminal context, “unless a client consents, a lawyer may not be required to disclose communications made by the client to the lawyer or advice given to the client in the course of professional employment.” , see A.R.S.