Legal Opinion

Kaufmann v. Cruikshank

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 17, 2009No. 2 CA-SA 2009-0031PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge.

¶ 1 The issue in this special action is whether the respondent judge properly relied upon his inherent authority to sanction bad-faith litigation conduct in ordering defense counsel to pay the State of Arizona’s attorney fees in the underlying criminal proceeding. We accept jurisdiction of this special action to address this narrow question because it raises a pure issue of law that has implications for criminal proceedings throughout the state and because the issue appears to be a matter of first impression. 1 See State ex rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage, 200…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. KRISHNAN v. KRISHNANCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2026
  2. Kretsch v. BartonDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2024
  3. L.H./d.L. v. Hon culbertson/ballesteroCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2024
  4. Rindlisbacher v. Steinway & Sons IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
  5. Stephanie Burkett v. John and Anita DryjaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API