1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ariz.
  4. 186 Ariz.
  5. 186 Ariz. 105 (1996)
 

VALENZUELA v. BROWN

No. 2 CA-SA 96-0006.

186 Ariz. 105 (1996)

919 P.2d 1376

Barbara VALENZUELA, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs in Intervention, v. The Honorable Michael J. BROWN, a Judge for the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Pima, Respondent, and RONALD JOHN SMITH and COMPANIES (Plaintiffs in Cause No. 251422); Associated Aviation Underwriters (Plaintiff in Cause No. 251462); United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., on Behalf of the United States Aircraft Insurance Group (Plaintiffs in Cause No. 253897); Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. and Chicago Insurance Co. (Plaintiffs in Cause No. 257074); Brian Eustice Beagley, et al. (Plaintiffs in Cause No. 269605) [All Five Actions Previously Were Consolidated Under Cause No. 251422 and Also Placed Under Seal], Real Parties in Interest/Plaintiffs.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department A.

Review Denied July 2, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Baron & Budd, P.C. by Frederick M. Baron, LeAnne Jackson, Dallas, Texas, and Janice Pennington, Tucson, and Gonzales & Villarreal, P.C. by Richard J. Gonzales, Tucson, for Petitioners/Plaintiffs in Intervention.

Mitten, Goodwin & Raup by Roger C. Mitten and Edward R. Glady, Jr., Phoenix, for Real Party in Interest/Plaintiff United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.

Gust Rosenfeld by H. William Fox and Peter Collins, Jr., Phoenix, for Real Party in Interest/Plaintiff Associated Aviation Underwriters.

Lord, Bissell & Brook, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, and Lesher & Lesher, P.C. by Robert O. Lesher, Tucson, for Real Parties in Interest/Plaintiffs Smith and Companies and Beagley and Companies.

Hathaway & Goering, P.A. by Milton W. Hathaway, Jr., Phoenix, and Rivkin, Radler & Kremer by Anthony R. Gambardella and Michael E. Buckley, Uniondale, New York, for Real Parties in Interest/Plaintiffs Interstate Fire & Cas. Co. and Chicago Ins. Co.

OPINION

PELANDER, Judge.

In this special action we are asked to decide whether a party is entitled to a peremptory change of judge under Ariz.R.Civ.P. 42(f)(1)(E), 16 A.R.S., after the dismissal of the party's case by summary judgment has been reversed on appeal. We answer that question in the affirmative and necessarily conclude that the respondent trial judge abused his discretion in denying petitioners that right. Petitioners have no "equally...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases