1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 261 P.3d
  5. 261 P.3d 456 (2011)
 

LUND v. DONAHOE

Nos. 1 CA-SA 11-0026, 1 CA-SA 11-0030, 1 CA-SA 11-0036.

261 P.3d 456 (2011)

William LUND and Sherry L. Lund, husband and wife; Sandra Slaton, counsel for William and Sherry Lund, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Gary E. DONAHOE, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, Diane Disney Miller, an individual, Kristen Lund Olsen, Karen Lund Page, Michelle A. Lund, Real Parties in Interest. Joel E. Sannes, Esq.; Rachel and Robert Schemitsch; Sabrina Lovejoy, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Gary E. Donahoe and the Honorable Robert D. Myers, Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judges, Diane Disney Miller, an individual, et al., Real Parties in Interest. Bradford D. Lund, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Gary E. Donahoe, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, Diane Disney Miller, an individual, Kristen Lund Olsen, Karen Lund Page, Michelle A. Lund, Real Parties in Interest.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E.

July 28, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Slaton Law Office, P.C. By Sandra Slaton, Scottsdale, Petitioner and Attorney for Petitioners William and Sherry Lund.

Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. By Daniel Cracchiolo, Daryl Manhart, Brian F. Murphy, Clarissa Reiman, Jessica Conaway, Phoenix, Attorneys for Respondents Diane Disney Miller, Kristen Lund Olsen, Karen Lund Page, and Michelle A. Lund.

Lake & Cobb, PLC By Joel E. Sannes, Tempe, Petitioner and Attorney for Petitioners Rachel and Robert Schemitsch and Sabrina Lovejoy.

Shumway Law Offices, PLC By Jeff A. Shumway, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Petitioner Bradford D. Lund.

OPINION

SWANN, Judge.

¶ 1 In this guardianship proceeding, an expert witness complained to the court about the burden posed by a subpoena for records. Within days, the court sua sponte set a show-cause hearing concerning possible sanctions. Before the hearing, the court announced its view that the subpoena represented an abuse of the discovery process and had been served as a means of harassing the witness. At the show-cause hearing, the court...

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