Jump to Navigation

Published Appellate Opinions

  • Malone v. Sullivan, 124 Ariz. 469, 605 P.2d 447, Ariz., January 15, 1980. A woman is not required by common law, statute or rule to assume name of her husband upon marriage.
  • St. Paul Property and Liability Ins. Co. v. Eymann, 166 Ariz. 344, 802 P.2d 1043, Ariz.App. Div. 1, August 23, 1990. (Judge pro tem.) Diminished capacity and the intentional acts exclusion in homeowners insurance coverage.
  • Plattner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 311, 812 P.2d 1129, Ariz.App. Div. 1, May 28, 1991. An insurance company which uses deception to require an attorney to withdraw from representing a client on contingent fee can be sued for intentional interference with contract.
  • Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 175 Ariz. 447, 857 P.2d 1301, Ariz.App. Div. 1, February 11, 1993. The "family member" exclusion in an automobile insurance policy is invalid if it violates the reasonable expectations of the insured.
  • Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 176 Ariz. 619, 863 P.2d 911, Ariz.App. Div. 1, November 23, 1993. When a defendant engages in discovery abuse by hiding damaging evidence, the court must hold a hearing to determine if the fault was with the party or the attorney before throwing out the liability defenses as a sanction.
  • Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers, 181 Ariz. 227, 889 P.2d 20, Ariz.App. Div. 1, May 31, 1994. A lawyer who handles an injury case for a minor child is entitled to a reasonable contingent fee. The function of the probate court is to ensure that the fee is reasonable, not to provide the minor with a discounted fee.
  • Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc., 194 Ariz. 236, 980 P.2d 489, 295 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7, Ariz., May 19, 1999. (Amicus curie.) Construction site injury and settlement; issues of indemnity and assignment of rights.
  • Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 44 P.3d 990, 378 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 61, Ariz., April 24, 2002. The "discovery rule" regarding statutes of limitation applies in medical/dental malpractice cases -- where a physician has concealed the cause of the patient's problems, time does not begin to run until the patient discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the cause was the physician's fault.
  • Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5, 106 P.3d 1020, 446 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 51, Ariz., February 24, 2005. Attorneys acted properly in negotiating a settlement agreement for their clients, and thus could not be sued for interfering in the contract relationship between the defendant insured and his insurance carrier.
  • Plattner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 311, 812 P.2d 1129, Ariz.App. Div. 1, May 28, 1991.