Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole, 896 P.2d 254.

86 citing documents.

Rivers v. Solley 177 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rivers v. Solley 177 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Co. v. O’Toole, , Walker, 107 Ariz. at 513 , 489 P.2d at 852 (“[T]he interests of justice are best served by a trial on the merits.”).
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
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
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co. v. O’Toole, , (relevant question is harm caused to opponent).
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
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
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Co. v. O’Toole, -88 , -58 (1995).
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In arguing lack of prejudice, he relies on Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole
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 s
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole, , GM argues that DOR willfully violated Rule 26.1 by failing to make a timely supplemental disclosure, that Molina’s affidavit prejudiced GM, and that GM had diligently prosecuted the case.
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Relying on our supreme court’s reasoning and “‘common sense approach’” applied to the civil procedure disclosure rules, Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole, , we concluded that Medical Rule 1(D)(3) was not “ ‘meant to deprive judges of all discretion to do what may be right and just in particular circumstances.’ ” Aguirre, 186 Ariz. at 396 , 923 P.2d at 862 , quoting Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 287 , 896 P.2d at 257 .
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co. v. O’Toole, , 288 n. 6, , 258 n. 6 (1995).
Aguirre v. ROBERT FORREST, PA 923 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Aguirre v. ROBERT FORREST, PA 923 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996