Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101.

76 citing documents.

Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a witness is competent to testify, ¶ 25 (App. 2006), and if there are reasonable inferences to be drawn from conflicting evidence and disputed facts, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, United Calif.
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because the trial court is the gate-keeper to ensure that exhibits have been disclosed, see Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1, see, ¶ 32, (noting a trial court must serve as an evidentiary gatekeeper), the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Exhibit 8 and precluding Utility’s undisclosed additional attachments.
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An appellate court “will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the admission or exclusion of evidence unless [the court] finds a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice, or finds that the trial court misapplied the law.” ¶ 7
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
n.5, n.5 (App. 2006); In re 11 STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMP.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
The 1 ¶¶ 32-33 & n.7, & 110 n.7 (App. 2006) (noting that Daubert, Joiner and Kumho Tire often referred to as “Daubert trilogy”).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Timothy Christopher Haight-Gyuro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Timothy Christopher Haight-Gyuro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haight-Gyuro asserts the state “failed to present the trial court with testimony that the video recordings were accurate depictions of the events recorded,” P.3d 101 (App. 2006), P.2d 1235 (App. 1985).
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
App. P. 13(a)(6); n.5, n.5 (App. 2006) (declining to address issue when appellants “failed to develop the argument on appeal”).
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“A general verdict implies a finding by the jury on every essential fact in favor of the prevailing party.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by