Kimberly Sayre is Senior Counsel at Tyson & Mendes’ Phoenix office. Her practice focuses on bad faith litigation, catastrophic personal injury, traumatic brain injury cases, complex regional pain syndrome, insurance coverage disputes, nursing home neglect, paraplegic, professional liability, and wrongful death cases. She has been practicing exclusively in the area of personal injury litigation for 25 years.
Ms. Sayre is board certified in personal injury and wrongful death by the State Bar of Arizona. She has been lead counsel in over 38 jury trials in Maricopa County. She has argued in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals and successfully argued a case in front of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Ms. Sayre obtained her J.D. from St. Thomas University School of Law in 1994. She obtained her B.A. in sociology from The University of Florida in 1991. In 2019, she was nominated and admitted into the American Board of Trial Attorneys (ABOTA).
In her free time, Ms. Sayre enjoys time with her children. She also enjoys cooking, traveling and rooting for Florida Gator football.
A recent decision in Division One of the Court of Appeals held plaintiff must prove she would have prevailed in the underlying claim as an essential element of a legal malpractice claim.[i] In Bellemare v. Lemon Law Group Partners, the Court of Appeals set aside the verdict in favor of plaintiff Carol Bellemare and held a plaintiff must prove the case within the case. In other words, she must be able to prove, but for the attorney’s negligence, she would have been successful in the underlying case. To meet this burden in the legal malpractice case, plaintiff must present facts sufficient to prove all the elements of the underlying case.
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(F) presumptively limits each side to one expert to testify on a particular issue. The intent of one-expert-per-side rule is to limit cumulative evidence. Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 218 Ariz. 317, ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26 cmt. to 1991 amend.). While a bright-line rule for determining when a treating physician crosses the line from fact witness to expert witness has been difficult to articulate, some…
Courthouses and court staff are continuously finding creative solutions to provide services while maintaining compliance with public health orders.
In response to COVID-19 and its impact on civil jury trials, Maricopa County has created the Late Case Fair Limits Proceedings for all civil cases not assigned to compulsory arbitration. As early as the date upon which discovery and disclosure close, the court may order the parties to participate in the proceeding. A Late Case Fair Limits officer is appointed by the court. This officer can be a current judge who has had no affiliation with the case or any retired judicial officer or attorney.
In response to the COVID-19 public health crisis, Maricopa County Superior Court recently announced a new program designed to help move cases to resolution during this unprecedented time. The Certified Arbitrator Program is the result of research conducted by various task forces who studied measures across departments to make court operations and procedures more efficient and responsive. This program allows the parties to any case where the amount in controversy is between $50,001 and $300,000…
Supreme Court of Arizona addresses conflict between rules for extension of service under Rule 4(i) and its interplay with Rule 6(b), the general rule for extending time.
Protection for proprietary commercial documents just got stronger in Arizona. The Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Center for Auto Safety v. Goodyearexpressly rejected the old “compelling reasons” standard and instead required a showing of “extraordinary circumstances”.