Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lynn v. Helitec Corp., 698 P.2d 1283.

28 citing documents.

Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(source of expert’s opinion lacks reliability if solely “based on statements of an eyewitness concerning the event giving rise to the lawsuit”).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A source is reliable if it “meets the two critical factors of necessity and trustworthiness.”
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.” Pesqueira cites Pipher v. Loo for the proposition that “‘[t]he test for admissibility of an expert’s opinion based on facts not in evidence is whether the source relied upon by the expert is reliable.’” (alteration in Pipher).
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(recognizing that expert can rely on inadmissible facts and data in constructing opinion).
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
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
in support of her claim that the MMI audit is not admissible based on hearsay.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
To be admissible, an expert’s opinion may rely upon facts and data from three types of sources: “(1) facts admitted into evidence at trial, (2) facts personally perceived by the expert, [or] (3) facts of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field.” , see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Dependency Action No. 98874 778 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Dependency Action No. 98874 778 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Although such records were admissible to show the basis for her opinion, , since all parties were agreed that monitoring was appropriate we fail to see any prejudice to the father by the court’s refusal to admit them.
State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
Rule 703, Comment (reasonably relied on facts or data “become admissible under this rule for the limited purpose of disclosing the basis for the opinion unless” excluded by applicable law), reprinted in 17A A.R.S.
Div. of Finance v. Industrial Com'n 769 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Div. of Finance v. Industrial Com'n 769 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
we stated: Facts or data, not admitted or inadmissible, on which an expert may reasonably rely may be revealed to the trier of fact not as substantive evidence but to show the basis of an expert’s opinion.