Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mammo v. State, 675 P.2d 1347.

64 citing documents.

Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mago v. Arizona Escrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Faulkner v. Laboratory Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Faulkner v. Laboratory Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“The test for whether the jury award is the result of passion or prejudice is whether the amount of the verdict is so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.”
Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
it has had the opportunity to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of witnesses,” -34 , -53 (App. 1983), a remittitur is only proper “for the most cogent reasons,” Young Candy & , (citation omitted), such as a “lack of evidence to support the damages awarded or a clear indication that the jury misapplied the pr
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes 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
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We also review the denial of post-trial motions for an abuse of discretion, “recognizing that [the trial court] ha[s] significant latitude in deciding whether to upset the [jury’s] verdict.” Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 53, ¶ 12, 961 P.2d at 451 ( -34, -53 (App. 1983)).
Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 14 When a trial court orders remittitur, we accord that ruling “[t]he greatest possible discretion because, like the jury, [the trial court] has had the opportunity to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of witnesses.” -34 , -53 (App.1983).
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Moreover, we recognize that we review a trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion because, “like the jury, it has had the opportunity to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of witnesses.” -34 , -53 (App.1983).
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.3d 121 (App. 2000); P.2d 1347 (App. 1983); P.2d 271 (1975).
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Considering plaintiffs medical and damages evidence, we cannot say “the amount of the jury verdict is so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.”
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Joe contends, however, that the court in Nelson was incorrect, and points out that the ease upon which Nelson relies, to support an abuse-of-discretion standard, -34 , -53 (App.1983), deals only with the denial of a motion for new trial, not JNOV.
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
(one million dollar remittitur in spouse’s wrongful death action within trial court’s broad discretion).
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Benevides v. AZ PROPERTY & CAS. INS. 911 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Benevides v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 911 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Benevides v. AZ PROPERTY & CAS. INS. 911 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Benevides v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 911 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Owens v. City of Phoenix 884 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Owens v. City of Phoenix 884 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
In determining whether that discretion has been abused, we must consider that “[t]he judge saw the witnesses, heard the testimony, knew the issues, and had a perspective on the relationship between evidence and verdict we can never achieve by a bare reading of the record.” Bradshaw, 114 Ariz. at 238 , 560 P.2d at 422 ; -34 , -53 (App.1983) (trial court has “greatest possible discretion” with regard to alteration of a verdict and grant or denial of motion for new trial because it had the opportun
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1990
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989