Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Powers v. Taser International, Inc., 174 P.3d 777.

45 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“We review jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Powers v. Taser Intern., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2007).
Tryon v. Utah Shelter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tryon v. Utah Shelter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Powers v. Taser Int’l., Inc., -05, ¶¶ 25-26 (App. 2007).
Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Obiekea v. Obiekea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2007).
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We also consider the “jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2007).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We consider the “jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2007).
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Powers v. Taser Int'l, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (corrected).
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1998)).
Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
4 City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors Inc., (court of appeals is bound by decisions of the supreme court and may not “overrule, modify, or disregard them”); Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (same).
Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc 431 P.3d 571 Ariz. 2018
Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc 431 P.3d 571 Ariz. 2018
CONKLIN V. MEDTRONIC Opinion of the Court ¶ 10, or instead as a negligence claim, see 2 Dan B. Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden & Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 464, at 950–51 (2d ed. 2011) (stating “[i]n effect, warning claims are negligence claims, as a number of courts recognize” and citing cases in support, including Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., (footnote omitted)).
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A jury instruction will warrant reversal only if it was “both harmful to the complaining party and directly contrary to the rule of law.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2007), as corrected (Jan.
Commerce v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Commerce v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., n.1 ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., n.1 ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Generally, we will follow the Restatement if we deem it good legal authority, but will reject it where “Arizona law suggests otherwise.” Powers v. Taser Int'l, Inc., ¶ 19
Summit v. Rees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summit v. Rees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., n.1 ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
and will come to a contrary conclusion if Arizona law suggests otherwise.” Powers v. Taser Intern., Inc., , 403 II 19, (citation omitted); , Reed v. Real Detective Pub.
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., n.1, ¶ 4, n.1 (App. 2007).
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sumpter’s SUV crashed head-on into the Glazers’ van, killing Glazer’s husband and young daughter and 1This court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., n.1, ¶ 4, n.1 (App. 2007).
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
g (1998), notes that “product distribution facilitators” such as parties who advertise or finance products, are not strictly liable.2 See Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., -82 (App. 2007) (Arizona courts follow Restatement “[a]bsent controlling Arizona law to the contrary”).
Wendland v. ADOBEAIR, INC. 221 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Wendland v. ADOBEAIR, INC. 221 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Powers v. Toser Int’l, Inc., , 399 n. 1, ¶ 4, , 778 n. 1 (App. 2007).
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, e.g., Powers v. Taser Int'l., Inc., n.1, ¶ 4 , , 778 n.1 (App.2007).
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
An instruction will only warrant reversal if it was both harmful to the complaining party and directly contrary to the rule of law.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 12 , (citation omitted).
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., , ¶ 4 n. 1, , 778 n. 1 (App.2007).
Highland Village Partners, LLC v. BRADBURY & STAMM CONSTRUCTION CO. 195 P.3d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Highland Village Partners, LLC v. BRADBURY & STAMM CONSTRUCTION CO. 195 P.3d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Restatement (Second) of Contracts (“Restatement”) § 317(2) (1981); see Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 19 , (acknowledging Arizona generally follows Restatement in absence of contrary authority); cf. Ariz.Rev.