Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Segal v. Rochellegreen1 sentence2023That is, because a debtor’s legal claim may have value as an asset with which to satisfy the debtor’s obligations to creditors, the trustee becomes the exclusive holder of the claim to do just that. 11 U.S.C. § 323 ; Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1966); Est. of Spirtos v. San Bernardino Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Spirtos v. One San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Numbered SPR 02211green1 sentence2023Case No. SPR 02211, 443 F.3d 1172 , 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he bankruptcy code endows the bankruptcy trustee with the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate.”). ¶38 Two things are true here: (1) Doe’s claims arose pre- bankruptcy and (2) the original two-year statutorily prescribed statute of limitation for the claims (as opposed to any judicially recognized period of equitable tolling) had passed by the time of her first bankruptcy petition. | 1 | 1 |
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY.green1 sentence2017See Bain, 148 Ariz. at 334 . ¶12 The patient is the holder of the privilege and, as such, is the only person who can waive it; however, when the patient is a minor child, 4 ABDELRAHMAN v. HON. | 1 | 1 |
Duquette v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 272 , 778 P.2d 634, 637 (App. 1989). 2016Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 272 , 778 P.2d 634, 637 (App. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Borissoff v. Taylor & Faustgreen2 sentences2014Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 33 Cal.4th 523 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 , 93 P.3d 337, 343-44 (2004) (“A successor fiduciary becomes the holder of the attorney-client privilege ‘only as to those confidential communications that occurred when the predecessor, in [its] fiduciary capacity, sought the attorney’s advice for guidance in administering the trust.’ Conversely, a successor fiduciary does not become the holder of the privilege for confidential communications that occurred when a predecessor fiduciary in [its] personal capacity sought an attorney’s advice.” (emphases omitted) (quoting Moeller, 6 2014Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 33 Cal.4th 523 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 , 93 P.3d 337, 343-44 (2004) (“A successor fiduciary becomes the holder of the attorney-client privilege ‘only as to those confidential communications that occurred when the predecessor, in [its] fiduciary capacity, sought the attorney’s advice for guidance in administering the trust.’ Conversely, a successor fiduciary does not become the holder of the privilege for confidential communications that occurred when a predecessor fiduciary in [its] personal capacity sought an attorney’s advice.” (emphases omitted) (quoting Moeller, 6 | 1 | 1 |
cluster 676508green1 sentence1999See Rhone-Poulenc Rover, Inc., 32 F.3d at 863 (“Advice is not in issue merely because it is relevant, and does not necessarily become in issue merely because the attorney’s advice might affect the client’s state of mind in a relevant manner.”); Metropolitan Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co.green1 sentence1999See Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gor-man-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695 (10th Cir.1998). ¶ 10 Under the most restrictive approach, which State Farm urges us to adopt, the privilege may not be deemed waived unless the holder of the privilege has expressly waived it or has impliedly waived it by directly injecting the advice of counsel into the litigation. | 1 | 1 |
Hearn v. Rhaygreen1 sentence1999See Hearn, 68 F.R.D. at 581 . | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Manngreen2 sentences1989See Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D. 1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D. 1989See Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D.1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.green1 sentence1988“Any voluntary disclosure by the holder of such a privilege is inconsistent with the confidential relationship and thus waives the privilege.” United States v. AT & T, 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C.Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tracy v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2014Although Tracy noted broadly that the “laws [relating to professional privileges] of each jurisdiction may appropriately vary,” id. at 43 , 810 P.2d at 1050 , it is not clear whether the communications or activities at issue in that case took place in Arizona (outside of tribal land), and the opinion in fact can be read to suggest that Tracy’s conduct took place on the Navajo reservation. 2014Although Tracy noted broadly that the “laws [relating to professional privileges] of each jurisdiction may appropriately vary,” id. at 43 , 810 P.2d at 1050 , it is not clear whether the communications or activities at issue in that case took place in Arizona (outside of tribal land), and the opinion in fact can be read to suggest that Tracy’s conduct took place on the Navajo reservation. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2020As we noted in Spurlock, when a deed contains a mineral exception or reservation, other provisions may regulate how the holder of that exception or reservation may exercise its rights to take the minerals. 143 Ariz. at 479 . 2020Here, paragraph seven establishes Paulden’s right to take 2 Because the issue is not raised in this appeal, we do not address whether paragraph four’s reference to “all other hydrocarbon substances” narrows the scope of the reservation to something less than “all minerals.” See Spurlock, 143 Ariz. at 475 n.4. 6 PAULDEN v. BIG CHINO, et al. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Moeller v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2014Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 33 Cal.4th 523 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 , 93 P.3d 337, 343-44 (2004) (“A successor fiduciary becomes the holder of the attorney-client privilege ‘only as to those confidential communications that occurred when the predecessor, in [its] fiduciary capacity, sought the attorney’s advice for guidance in administering the trust.’ Conversely, a successor fiduciary does not become the holder of the privilege for confidential communications that occurred when a predecessor fiduciary in [its] personal capacity sought an attorney’s advice.” (emphases omitted) (quoting Moeller, 6 2014Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 33 Cal.4th 523 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 , 93 P.3d 337, 343-44 (2004) (“A successor fiduciary becomes the holder of the attorney-client privilege ‘only as to those confidential communications that occurred when the predecessor, in [its] fiduciary capacity, sought the attorney’s advice for guidance in administering the trust.’ Conversely, a successor fiduciary does not become the holder of the privilege for confidential communications that occurred when a predecessor fiduciary in [its] personal capacity sought an attorney’s advice.” (emphases omitted) (quoting Moeller, 6 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
green
1 sentence1999See, e.g., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.; Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 413 F.Supp. 926 (N.D.Cal.1976); Transamerica Title Ins. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Garner v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1989See Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D. 1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D. 1989See Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D.1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wartman v. Pecka
green
2 sentences1968Trading Company, 47 Ariz. 47 , 53 P.2d 734 ; and Wartman v. Pecka, 8 Ariz. 8 , 68 P. 534—the attachment in the instant case was made after death and therefore is governed by A.R.S. § 14 — 577, which reads as follows: “The holder of a claim against an estate shall not maintain an action thereon unless the claim is first presented to the executor or administrator, but an action may be brought by the holder of a mortgage or lien to enforce it against the property of the estate subject thereto where all recourse against other property of the estate is expressly waived in the complaint, but no coun 1968Trading Company, 47 Ariz. 47 , 53 P.2d 734 ; and Wartman v. Pecka, 8 Ariz. 8 , 68 P. 534—the attachment in the instant case was made after death and therefore is governed by A.R.S. § 14 — 577, which reads as follows: “The holder of a claim against an estate shall not maintain an action thereon unless the claim is first presented to the executor or administrator, but an action may be brought by the holder of a mortgage or lien to enforce it against the property of the estate subject thereto where all recourse against other property of the estate is expressly waived in the complaint, but no coun | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Babbitt Bros. Trading Co.
green
2 sentences1968Trading Company, 47 Ariz. 47 , 53 P.2d 734 ; and Wartman v. Pecka, 8 Ariz. 8 , 68 P. 534—the attachment in the instant case was made after death and therefore is governed by A.R.S. § 14 — 577, which reads as follows: “The holder of a claim against an estate shall not maintain an action thereon unless the claim is first presented to the executor or administrator, but an action may be brought by the holder of a mortgage or lien to enforce it against the property of the estate subject thereto where all recourse against other property of the estate is expressly waived in the complaint, but no coun 1968Trading Company, 47 Ariz. 47 , 53 P.2d 734 ; and Wartman v. Pecka, 8 Ariz. 8 , 68 P. 534—the attachment in the instant case was made after death and therefore is governed by A.R.S. § 14 — 577, which reads as follows: “The holder of a claim against an estate shall not maintain an action thereon unless the claim is first presented to the executor or administrator, but an action may be brought by the holder of a mortgage or lien to enforce it against the property of the estate subject thereto where all recourse against other property of the estate is expressly waived in the complaint, but no coun | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.