Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 762 P.2d 609.

27 citing documents.

McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. 2025
McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. 2025
See Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., –32 (App. 1988) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 217, 218, 221) (discussing the elements of a trespass to chattel claim, including the requirement that plaintiff was harmed by defendant’s conduct).
McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
McAlister v. Loeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶39 Arizona law defines trespass to chattel consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement”) § 217 (1965): “intentionally dispossessing another of the chattel or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.” Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., –31 (App. 1988).
Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Mans v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mans v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
State v. Mitchell 323 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mitchell 323 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 218 cmt.
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Gordon v. Liguori, 182 P.2d 523 (App. 1995); see also Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., P.2d 609 (App. 1988).
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See id., (reviewing jnov); Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , (same).
Gau v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 901 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gau v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 901 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , see also Gortarez, 140 Ariz. at 104 , 680 P.2d at 814 .
Lisa v. Strom 904 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Lisa v. Strom 904 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “An order granting a new trial is subject to a more liberal standard of review than an order denying one.” Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , (citation omitted).
Cotterhill v. Bafile 865 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cotterhill v. Bafile 865 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
I. In reviewing the granting of judgment n.o.v., we must determine “whether the evidence is sufficient that reasonable people could discern facts to support the verdict.” Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
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
See Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.