Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kirby v. Rosell, 648 P.2d 1048.

25 citing documents.

Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Leavy, 188 Ariz. at 73; -46 (App. 1982) (rejecting argument that “proof of actual prejudice” is required for court to grant motion for a new trial).
Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kotara v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-86, - 801 (1982) (holding the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s prior convictions were not mentioned when four jurors testified that those convictions had been discussed during juror deliberations); (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for new trial where on the basis of a juror’s affidavit, the jury considered notes from a business law textbook which were not part of the evidence).
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-47 , -53 (App. 1982); Haley v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., 802 F.2d 1532, 1536 (4th Cir.1986).
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because we presume that the “court considered only competent evidence in arriving at its decision,” we therefore will not assume that it considered evidence for improper hearsay purposes.
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(grant or denial of motion for new trial within sound discretion of trial court that will not be upset absent clear abuse of discretion); Modla v. Parker, 17 Ariz.App.
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
According to one set of cases, the trial court should examine whether “there is a reasonable possibility of prejudice.”
Richtmyre v. State 858 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Richtmyre v. State 858 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Perkins v. Komarnyckyj 834 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1992
Perkins v. Komarnyckyj 834 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1992
See, -46 , -52 (Ct.App.1982); see also Texas Gen.
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Webb v. Erickson 655 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
Foster v. Camelback Management Co. 646 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Foster v. Camelback Management Co. 646 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Kirby v. Rosell, - Ariz. -