Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tryon v. Naegle, 510 P.2d 768.

32 citing documents.

Ekberg v. M-14p Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ekberg v. M-14p Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lexon v. Valley Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶17 In reviewing the trial court’s determination of a proposed adjustment of a verdict, we follow the doctrine “that if the verdict is supported by adequate evidence, it will not be disturbed, and the greatest possible discretion is in the hands of the trial judge.” -41 (1973) (- 77 (1972) (recognizing that trial judge’s ruling on additur, remittitur, and new trial on a claim of an inadequate or excessive verdict generally will be affirmed because, like the jury, the trial judge has had the oppo
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
are of the opinion that, by denying Petta’s motion for new trial or remittitur, the superior court allowed Plaintiffs to obtain an award of damages not supported by adequate evidence, and allowed a verdict to stand that not only shocks the conscience of this court, but was so extreme “as to manifestly indicate passion, prejudice, mistake or a complete disregard of the evidence.” (citations omitted).
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(Closing argument that a specified damages amount “would be very tragic” to defendant was improper.
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Gehres v. City of Phoenix 753 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Gehres v. City of Phoenix 753 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
MacConnell v. Maricopa County Medical Society 724 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
MacConnell v. Maricopa County Medical Society 724 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Moser v. Mardian Construction Company, 20 Ariz.App.
Acolla v. Peralta 721 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Acolla v. Peralta 721 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Van Dever v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 585 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 585 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Mobile Home Sales Management Inc. v. Brown 562 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Mobile Home Sales Management Inc. v. Brown 562 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 51(a), insofar as pertinent, provides: “ * * * No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retired to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” , the court said: “[T]he doctrine of fundamental error in civil cases should be sparingly applied, Ortega v. State, 6 Ariz.App.
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ahmed v. Collins 530 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975