Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryan v. Riddel, 875 P.2d 131.

70 citing documents.

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 79 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 5 Adequate disclosure “should fairly expose the facts and issues to be litigated, as well as the witnesses and exhibits to be relied upon.”
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
The disclosure rules are designed to provide parties “a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement — nothing more, nothing less.”
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Although we agree with Dr. Bennett that Rule 26.1 does not require “detailed ‘scripting’ of expected testimony,” , 476 n. 5, , 135 n. 5 (1994), his pretrial disclosures did not provide Denise with any notice that he would be arguing this theory of comparative fault.
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington 3 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 15 Arizona courts interpret Rule 26.1 in accordance with its plain and obvious meaning, and “in harmony with [its] underlying philosophy and purpose,”
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See generally Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole, , , , , (trial court properly rejected proposed amendment which would have added a new design defect theory seven weeks before trial).
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Evaluating those factors in accordance with the “ ‘common sense’ approach” , and mindful that “procedural rules should be interpreted to maximize the likelihood of a decision on the merits,” Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 287 , 896 P.2d at 257 , we conclude that the trial court’s total exclusion of Dr. Goodwin’s testimony was too harsh a sanction for any alleged infraction of th
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
(1] We believe the interpretation and application of Rule 26.1(c) should be accorded a “common sense”