Legal Opinion

Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1995No. CV-94-0178-PRPublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZLAKET, Justice.

The issue here is whether, under Rule 26.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court must automatically exclude witnesses and exhibits where no good cause for their late disclosure has been shown. In September 1992, respondents Daniel and Doreen Korman filed a complaint against his employer, Allstate Insurance Company, for wrongful termination and breach of contract. The Kormans’ original attorneys withdrew from the case in late December without having answered Allstate’s request for production of documents. The parties, however, stipulated to an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Gorman v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Hantsbarger v. CoffinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1993
  4. Bryan v. RiddelArizona Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Jones v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Link v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998
  2. Zimmerman v. ShakmanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  3. Perguson v. TamisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  4. SOLIMENO v. YonanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  5. Marquez v. OrtegaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013

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

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

Powered by the Exa API