From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stines v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of Arizona
Feb 28, 1967
424 P.2d 153 (Ariz. 1967)

Opinion

No. 8947.

February 28, 1967.

Langerman, Begam Lewis, Phoenix, for petitioners.

Snell Wilmer, Phoenix, for respondents Sparkle Chemical and Cleantenance Co.

Herbert Mallamo, Phoenix, for respondents Matak.


The petition for writ of mandamus is ordered denied. The asserted impeaching evidence having been deposited with the clerk of the court in compliance with Rule XVI(c) (1) (vii), Uniform Rules of Practice, as amended February 1st, 1967, 17 A.R.S., the trial judge should examine such evidence for the purpose of determining whether it is for impeachment purposes, in accordance with our decision in Zimmerman v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212.


Summaries of

Stines v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of Arizona
Feb 28, 1967
424 P.2d 153 (Ariz. 1967)
Case details for

Stines v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:Charles G. STINES, Individually, as Guardian Ad Litem of Terry J. Stines…

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Feb 28, 1967

Citations

424 P.2d 153 (Ariz. 1967)
424 P.2d 153

Citing Cases

Fleitz v. Van Westrienen

We think, however, the differences between Rules VI and Rule XVI are of no consequence in this analysis. See…

City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska

Yet, rather than make the proper motion under Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., Edwards waited…