Legal Opinion
Panzino v. City of Phoenix
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 26, 1999No. 1 CA-CV 96-0425, 1 CA-CV 96-0609PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FIDEL, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1. Attorney David Appleton so neglected the personal injury claims of his client Laura Panzino that the trial court dismissed them for lack of prosecution.' Panzino replaced Appleton, but, because Appleton’s neglect was not excusable, her new attorney could not achieve the reinstatement of her claims on the ground of excusable neglect. This appeal concerns Panzino’s alternative effort to achieve reinstatement on the equitable ground that Appleton had so substantially neglected her claims as to constructively abandon her representation.
I. History
¶2. On January…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. Salvatore Cirami, Salvatore Cirami & Margaret CiramiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- City of Phoenix v. GeylerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Daley v. County of ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1982
- Orange Empire National Bank v. KirkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Panzino v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 2000
- Panzino v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 2000
- Panzino v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 2000