Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 760 P.2d 574.

34 citing documents.

State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Corp., -79, -79 (App. 1988).
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Vicki Pounders v. Enserch E&C Inc 306 P.3d 9 Ariz. 2013
Corp., (dismissing the place-of-injury factor because the “[p]laintiffs could have duplicated their relationship with [the defendant] anywhere,” and was therefore “mere happenstance”).
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pounders v. ENSERCH E & C, INC. 276 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Benkendorf v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 269 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Benkendorf v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 269 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Corp., , (stating the decision to admit expert testimony lies within trial court’s discretion); see Crackel v. Allstate Ins.
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Corp., -87 , -87 (App.1988) (upholding trial court’s admission, with limiting instruction, of various documents for purposes of impeaching manufacturer’s claim that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury).
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Corp., -88 , -88 (App.1988) (microbiologist qualified to testify to diagnosis and causation of medical condition under Ariz. R. Evid.
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Corp., , (considering most significant relationship in a tort case); Ambrose v. Illinois-Califomia Express, Inc., , (same).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Corp., -83 , -83 (App.1988) (scientific hypothesis of causation); -79 , -12 (App.1990) (bite mark comparison); -26 , -64 (App.1993) (general characteristics of child sexual abuse victims).
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
sage and we’ve changed our procedures.” After the Monacos’ attorney reasserted his relevance objection, the court sustained the objection and ruled that “[t]he sending-the-message argument is stricken.” ¶ 15 Appellants argue that the evidence of their subsequent remedial measures was “admissible to avoid any inadvertent award of punitive damages,”
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Garcia v. General Motors Corp. 990 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir.1988); , (legal issues are reviewed de novo).
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 580, 858 P.2d at 1183
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, e.g., Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 157 Ariz. *156 574, 578, (choice of law analysis begins with a determination that laws of the two jurisdiction differ in relevant applications).
Wal-Mart v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wal-Mart v. Industrial Commission 901 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995