Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ahmed v. Collins, 530 P.2d 900.

26 citing documents.

Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Punitive damages are not to compensate for a loss, but rather to punish for misconduct, and it must, therefore be a matter of discretion for the trier of fact.”).
Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review the jury’s decision to award punitive damages for an abuse of discretion, although we consider de novo constitutional challenges to the amount of such an award.
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review that ruling for an abuse of discretion.1 (“Punitive damages are not to compensate for a loss, but rather to punish for misconduct, and it must, therefore be a matter of discretion for the trier of fact.”).
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Frazier v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 653 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Frazier v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 653 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
which contains a statement of law appearing in many other Arizona opinions, “Punitive damages are not to compensate for a loss, but rather to punish for misconduct, and it (sic) must, therefore be a matter of discretion for the trier of fact.” , 4
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Correa v. Pecos Valley Development Corp. 617 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
55 , Madisons Chevrolet, , and such an award will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unreasonable under the circumstances.
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
Staheli v. Kauffman 595 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1979
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Sanchez 579 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
As far as the unbridled taxing power of the state is concerned, , wherein the court held that it was not necessary to introduce into evidence the wealth of the defendant in order to sustain an award of punitive damages.
Richard H. Huff Realty, Inc. v. Andrews 564 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Richard H. Huff Realty, Inc. v. Andrews 564 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See also Rodriguez v. Williams, 10 , , relating to the failure to object to allegedly improper conduct of counsel.