Cited by

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

64 citing documents.

Blauvelt v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Blauvelt v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Graber v. City of Peoria 753 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Graber v. City of Peoria 753 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
“The test for whether the jury award is the result of passion or prejudice is whether the amount of the jury verdict is so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.”
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
cited by ADOT, does not hold otherwise.
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983