Martin v. Eyman, 429 P.2d 660 (Ariz. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Martin v. Eyman, 429 P.2d 660 (Ariz. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kaufman v. Jesser (azd, 2012-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaufman v. Jesser
D. Ariz. · 2012 · confidence medium
Governing Law A. Attorney Negligence Law “In Arizona,’an attorney must act for his client in a reasonably careful and skillful manner in light of his special professional knowledge.’ ” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1134 (D.Ariz. 2007) (quoting Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (Ariz.1967)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP
D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co. v. Seery, 351 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Iowa 1984); Kirsch v. Duryea, 21 Cal.3d 303 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 218 , 578 P.2d 935 (1978); Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (1967); Hodges v. Carter, 239 N.C. 517 , 80 S.E.2d 144, 146 (1954).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cecala v. Newman
D. Ariz. · 2007 · confidence medium
A. Two Theories of Malpractice Liability In Arizona, “an attorney must act for his client in a reasonably careful and skillful manner in light of his special professional knowledge.” Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
This doctrine holds that an attorney will not be held liable “for a mistake in a point of law that has not been settled by the highest court of the jurisdiction and upon which reasonable lawyers may differ.” Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (1967); see Molever v. Roush, 152 Ariz. 367, 372 , 732 P.2d 1105, 1110 (App.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watkiss & Saperstein v. Williams (2×)
Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
See Hanlin v. Mitchelson, 623 F.Supp. 452, 456-57 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 794 F.2d 834 (2d Cir.1986); Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (1967); Davis v. Damrell, 119 Cal.App.3d 883 , 174 Cal.Rptr. 257, 259-60 (1981); Allred v. Rabon, 572 P.2d 979, 981 (Okla.1977); Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc. v. Kincaid, 69 Or.App. 35 , 684 P.2d 13, 14 (1984); Mallen & Smith at § 17.7; accord Hipwell, 858 P.2d at 988-90 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Halvorsen v. Ferguson (2×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Levit § 200, at 278 and cases cited therein; see also Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341 , 429 P.2d 660 (1967) (summary judgment); Davis v. Damrell, 119 Cal. App. 3d 883 , 174 Cal. Rptr. 257 (1981) (summary judgment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frey v. Stoneman (2×)
Ariz. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341 , 429 P.2d 660 (1967). 4.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Martinson Manufacturing Co. v. Seery (4×)
Iowa · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Martin v. Burns, 102 Ariz. 341, 343 , 429 P.2d 660, 662 (1967); Davis v. Damrell, 119 Cal.App.3d 883, 887-89 , 174 Cal.Rptr. 257, 259-61 (1981); Hopper v. Gurtman, 17 N.J.Misc. 289, 296, 8 A.2d 376, 380 (1939), aff'd, 126 N.J.L. 263 , 18 A.2d 245 (1941); Rosner v. Paley, 116 Misc.2d 454, 465 , 455 N.Y.S.2d 959, 965-66 (1982); Quality Inns Intl., Inc. v. Booth, Fish, Simpson, Harrison and Hall, 58 N.C.App. 1, 13-14 , 292 S.E.2d 755, 763 (1982); Collins v. Wanner, 382 P.2d 105, 109 (Okla.1963); Medrano v. Miller, 608 S.W.2d 781, 784 (Tex.Civ.App.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fred D. MARTIN, Petitioner,
v.
Frank A. EYMAN, Warden Et Al., Respondents
H-242.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Jul 7, 1967.
429 P.2d 660
Fred D. Martin, in pro. per., Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., James S. Te-gart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Bernstein, McFarland, Struckmeyer, Udall, Lockwood.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

On April 17, 1967, Fred D. Martin filed an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court. The application together with the Attorney General’s response disclose that on February 1, 1965, the petitioner with the aid of court appointed counsel entered a plea of guilty in the Superior Court of Pinal County to the charge of burglary, a felony; and, it appearing to the court that the ends of justice would be best served if sentence was not then imposed, petitioner was placed on probation and sentence was suspended for a term of three years. Thereafter, on May 3, 1965, petitioner’s probation was revoked and a sentence of not less than three nor more than five years in the Arizona State Prison Was then imposed. Petitioner’s counsel was not present in court at the time of sentencing.

As we said in Lee v. State, 99 Ariz. 269, 270, 408 P.2d 408, 409 (1965), “If there is any one time that a defendant on a criminal charge may be in need of an attorney to speak in his behalf or to advise him of his legal rights it can well be at the time of sentencing.” The right to have counsel present at the time of sentencing was not waived by the petitioner.

We hold, therefore, that the judgment and commitment of the Superior Court of Pinal County is set aside. Custody of the petitioner is ordered transferred from the State Prison at Florence, Arizona, to the Sheriff of Pinal County for resentencing in accordance with this decision.

BERNSTEIN, C. J., McFARLAND, V. C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.