Cited by

See Warne Invs., (providing that remedies for fraudulent transfer “address a creditor’s rights against the transferee or the transferred asset”); see also Farris, (transferee was defendant in underlying avoidance action); ¶¶ 32-33 (App. 2003) (husband’s mistress wa

Warne Investments, ¶ 33 (App. 2008).

Warne Invs., ¶ 16 (App. 2008).10 A. Mere Continuation Theory ¶48 To be liable under the mere continuation theory, “there must be ‘a substantial similarity in the ownership and control of the two corporations,’ and ‘insufficient consideration running from the new company to the old’ for the assets pass

have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim.” Warne Invs., ¶ 33 (App. 2008).

Judgment under Rule 50 is appropriate when “the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” Warne Invs., ¶ 33 (App. 2008).

Warne Invs., ¶ 33 (App. 2008) (Rule 59 motion for new trial); ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment); Takieh v. O’Meara, ¶ 34 (App. 2021) (Rule 37 motion for sanctions).

See Warne Invs., ¶ 16 (App. 2008); A.R.

Warne Invs., ¶ 33 (App. 2008).

We will reverse the superior court’s denial of a motion for new trial and/or additur “only if it reflects a manifest abuse of discretion given the record and circumstances of the case.” see also Warne Investments, ¶ 33 (App. 2008).

Warne Invs., ¶ 33, ¶¶ 6-7

Warne Inv., n.1, ¶ 5, n.1 (App. 2008) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 41 (8th ed. 2004)); see Ariz. R. Civ.

See Warne Invs., ¶ 33, (citations omitted).