Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Neville, 708 P.2d 1297.

146 citing documents.

Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
V. DISCUSSION In disciplinary matters we are the triers of both fact and law, , -33 (1982), and the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence
In Re Zang 803 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1990
In Re Zang 803 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1990
Discussion In disciplinary matters, this court acts as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
In Re Lincoln 798 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1990
In Re Lincoln 798 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1990
Standard of Review In disciplinary proceedings, this court acts as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
Discussion This court sits as the ultimate “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 794 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 794 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Morris 793 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Morris 793 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1990
DISCUSSION In disciplinary proceedings we act as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
Matter of Rivkind 791 P.2d 1037 Ariz. 1990
Matter of Rivkind 791 P.2d 1037 Ariz. 1990
DISCUSSION In disciplinary proceedings, we act as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.” , 708 P.2d *157 1297, 1299 (1985).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nefstead 789 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nefstead 789 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1990
MATTER OF MacASKILL 788 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1990
MATTER OF MacASKILL 788 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
Standard of review In disciplinary proceedings we act as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
In re Diettrich 778 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1989
In re Diettrich 778 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1989
Standard of Review In disciplinary proceedings we act as an independent “trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
Matter of Arrick 775 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Arrick 775 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Spear 774 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Spear 774 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1989
B. Standard of Review We approach this matter as an “independent trier of both fact and law in the exercise of our supervisory responsibility over the State Bar.”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Pappas 768 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Pappas 768 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Douglas 764 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Douglas 764 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1988
While we might agree with Bar counsel that Respondent violated one or more of the DR’s, , -12 , -03 (1985); In re Staples, 259 Or.
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
at 387 , 746 P.2d at 1317 (citing McCORMICK, LAW OF EVIDENCE § 340, at 959-60 (3d ed.1982), and , ).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Grimble 759 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Grimble 759 P.2d 594 Ariz. 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
Our supreme 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
In re Phelps 744 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1987
In re Phelps 744 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Petrie 742 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Zang 741 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1987
Matter of Zang 741 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1987
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting 726 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1986
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting 726 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1986
Conflicts in the testimony do not prevent us from independently finding clear and convincing evidence, i.e., that the truth of the contentions is “highly probable.” -11 , -02 (1985).
In re Murray 709 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1985
In re Murray 709 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1985