Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pipher v. Loo, 212 P.3d 91.

25 citing documents.

Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(noting court’s “wide discretion” for determining reliability of evidence under Rule 703).
Waterford v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Waterford v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
It is the jury’s function to determine accuracy, weight, or credibility.” ¶ 17 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 52 (2000)).
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (App. 2009) (challenges to “the accuracy and reliability of a witness’ factual basis, data, and methods go to the weight and credibility of the witness’ testimony”).
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This Court has held that the “test for admissibility of an expert’s opinion based on facts not in evidence is whether the source relied upon by the expert is reliable.” ¶ 8 (App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“It is the jury’s function to determine accuracy, weight, or credibility.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 47 (App. 2007) (same) (citation omitted).
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
expert may rely on facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible “[i]f experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.” Pesqueira cites Pipher v. Loo for the proposition that “‘[t]he test for admissibility of an expert’s opinion based on facts not in evidence is whether the source relied upon by the expert is reliable.’” (alteration in Pipher).
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
P. 4 SANDRETTO v. PAYSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC. Opinion of the Court Loo, (testimony); Alberta Sec.
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
ion;” was “not familiar with building or fire codes;” had “no experience as an architect or builder of hotels;” and had “no formal training in the areas of premises liability or code compliance.” ¶ 16 Whether a person qualifies as an expert turns on “whether a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.” Davolt, 207 Ariz. at 210, ¶ 70 , 84 P.3d at 475 ; ¶ 17
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents 269 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012