Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Cano v. Neill, 473 P.2d 487.
- Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Day v. Armendt
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
702; (citation omitted).
- State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
-
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer
392 P.3d 488
Ariz. 2017
Thomas, –12, –57 (1969); –71, –96 (1970)
- Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Fischer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(citing J. Moore, Federal Practice, § 59.08(5), at 3818-19 (2d ed. 1953); see Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 56, ¶ 27 (in ruling on a motion for new trial, a judge may not substitute his own judgment for that of the jury); Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S.V.
- Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
- Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-
Walter v. Simmons
818 P.2d 214
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
This court will not disturb an *236 order granting a new trial “unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” , quoting Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. at 39 , 282 P.2d at 472 .
- Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
-
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
762 P.2d 609
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(1960); Cano v. *326 Neill
- Bell v. State 693 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- Bell v. State 693 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- King v. Superior Court 673 P.2d 787 Ariz. 1983
-
King v. Superior Court
673 P.2d 787
Ariz. 1983
If a trial judge realizes that an erroneous ruling has been made, he must act to prevent a miscarriage of justice, see, , and order a new trial.
- State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
- Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
- Porras v. Campbell Sales Co. 589 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-
Porras v. Campbell Sales Co.
589 P.2d 1352
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Moreover, the court cannot weigh the evidence when passing upon the propriety of such a motion
- Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
- Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
- Brown v. General Foods Corp. 573 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-
Brown v. General Foods Corp.
573 P.2d 930
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
we approved the following as stating the standard to be employed by a trial judge in ruling upon a Rule 59(a)(8) motion for new trial: “ ‘The trial judge, exercising a mature judicial discretion, should view the verdict in the overall setting of the trial; consider the character of the evidence
- Ehman v. Rathbun 569 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
-
Ehman v. Rathbun
569 P.2d 1358
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Although ordinarily the granting of a new trial is to a great extent discretionary with the trial court, , this appeal involves no such discretion.
- City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
- City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
- Smith v. Chapman 565 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
Smith v. Chapman
565 P.2d 880
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
1 The rules regulating the granting of a , wherein we stated: “There can be nothing discretionary, however, about a directed verdict.
- Fruth v. Divito 546 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- Fruth v. Divito 546 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- Joy v. Raley 540 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Followed Joy v. Raley 540 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Hendricks v. Simper 539 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975