DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Weiner, 586 P.2d 194.

28 citing documents.

  • In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ("Ordinarily, a lawyer may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is wholly unrelated."); , (discussing Ethical Rule 1.8(a)(1), noting that lawyer must fully disclose all conflicts inherent in business transaction involving lawyer and client).
  • Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (“Ordinarily, a lawyer may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is wholly unrelated.”); , (discussing Ethical Rule 1.8(a)(1), noting that lawyer must fully disclose all conflicts inherent in business transaction involving lawyer and client).
  • In Re Lorona 875 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1994
  • In Re Lorona 875 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1994
    (citations omitted); , (“[M]ost of the issues of fact in the case were disputed by the parties; however, this did not deter the court from finding that the evidence ...
  • Matter of Wade 846 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1993
  • Matter of Wade 846 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1993
  • Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
  • Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
    Clear and convincing evidence means “that which may persuade that ‘the truth of the contention is “highly probable.” ’ ” , ( , ); see also McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 340(b) (4th ed. 1992).
  • Matter of Breen 830 P.2d 462 Ariz. 1992
  • Matter of Breen 830 P.2d 462 Ariz. 1992
    See C. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 8.11.1, 8.11.2, 8.11.3 pp. 479-82; , , Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86 , 451 N.Y.S.2d 46, 49 , 436 N.E.2d 496, 499 (1982).
  • Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
  • Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
  • Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Our supreme court has recognized that an “attorney-client relationship is an ongoing relationship giving rise to a continuing duty to the client unless and until the client clearly understands, or reasonably should understand, that the relationship is no longer to be depended on.”
  • Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Franko v. Mitchell 762 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Renforth 746 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    court has subscribed to the view expressed by McCormick that the clear and convincing evidence standard “could be more simply and intelligibly translated to the jury if they were instructed that they must be persuaded that the truth of the contention is ‘highly probable.’ ” McCormick, supra, § 340 at 959-60
  • Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
  • Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
  • Matter of Neville 708 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1985
  • Matter of Neville 708 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1985
  • In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nulle 620 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1980
  • In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nulle 620 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1980
  • Matter of Kali 606 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1980
  • Matter of Kali 606 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1980
    Respondent has violated the rule of Matter of Weiner, [ , ] * * * by failing to insure that the transaction was fair to his client and by failing to fully disclose the nature of the transaction and the conflicting interests of the parties.” (Transcript citations omitted.)