Legal Opinion
Larriva v. Montiel
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 30, 1984No. 2 CA-SA 0112PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOWARD, Judge.
Petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s denial of a motion for protective order under Rule 26(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., which sought to limit the real parties in interest’s discovery of petitioners’ financial worth in anticipation of a punitive damage award. Because the petitioners are without an adequate remedy by means of appeal, and because we believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for the protective order, we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
It is settled in Arizona that the wealth of a defendant is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Leidholt v. District Court in and for City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
- Miller v. Doctor's General HospitalDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- Belinski v. GoodmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
- Vollert v. Summa Corp.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re Jacobs, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2009
- Ball v. PrenticeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- Holman v. BurgessCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
- Arpaio v. FigueroaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- In Re Jacobs, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.