Cited by

¶10 “Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.”

“Conversion is ‘[a]n intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.’” ¶ 11 (App. 2008) (citations omitted).

See 8 GREENWELL, ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (holding that water company had standing to bring conversion action because abandonment was not alleged).

¶ 30 (App. 2008) (no abuse of discretion in denying spoliation instruction when 7 LELAND v. AUTO NATION, et al. Decision of the Court plaintiffs could challenge opponent's evidence by introducing their own, and remaining evid

¶17 To initiate a claim, a party must have standing—that is, “a personal stake in the controversy’s outcome” caused by “a distinct and palpable injury.” see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6, -06, ¶¶ 7-8, -59 (App. 2008).

SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, ¶ 99 , -08, ¶ 14 , -61 (App.2008).

¶ 16 , (citation omitted); see also 1 Am.Jur.2d Abandoned, lost, and Unclaimed Property § 3 (2012) (“Abandonment ...

¶ 20, (recognizing that the dominant easement owner, not the servient estate owner, bears responsibility for maintaining an easement) (review denied Apr.

See, ¶ 30 , (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that it could infer that evidence destroyed by the plaintiff would have been adverse to it); Smyser, 215 Ariz. at 440, ¶ 38 , 160 P.3d at 1198 (holding trial court did not err by refusing to giv