Legal Opinion
State v. Shipman
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided August 3, 2004No. 2 CA-CV 2002-0158PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ESPINOSA, Acting Presiding J.
¶ 1 The State of Arizona appeals from the superior court’s order imposing a sanction against it in the form of attorney fees, arguing that, contrary to the court’s ruling, Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., Pt. 1, does not apply to this action and that even if it does, the court had no authority to award attorney fees as a sanction in this case. Because we agree that Rule 11 does not apply in the context of a criminal proceeding, we vacate the award.
Facts and Procedural History
¶2 Thomas Sweeney was charged with three counts of driving under the influence…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. MinceyArizona Supreme Court · 1981
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- State of Wisconsin v. Andrew F. Glick, Joseph Birkenstock, Donald Leist, Michael Dewane, and Samuel S. MisenkoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- State v. CañezArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire ProtectionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSBCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Stant v. City of Maricopa Employee Merit BoardCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- Mashni v. FosterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- Kaufmann v. CruikshankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.