Cited by

v. Leonesio, ¶ 10 (App. 2011) ("[R]ule 50(a) 'is based upon the premise that the claimed omission of proof might be cured by a reopening of the plaintiff's case if the trial court finds merit to the motion.'" (quoting Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary Sch.

v. Leonesio, n. 6 (App. 2011) (interpreting Rule 50(a) and 50(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 7 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 19 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 6 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 22 (App. 2011) (refusing to consider under A.R.S.

v. Leonesio, ¶ 7 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, (discovery rule available for plaintiffs who were sexually abused, repressed those memories, and, after remembering the abuse, brought complaints after statute of limitations ran).

v. Leonesio, –82 ¶¶ 5–11 (App. 2011) (holding that the court appeals’s jurisdiction to review sufficiency of the evidence is limited by A.R.S.

v. Leonesio, ¶ 13 (App. 2011); Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Leonesio, ¶ 21 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 13 (App. 2011).

v. Leonesio, ¶ 11, n.6 (App. 2011).3 ¶20 There is a split in authority in the federal cases and even among courts within the same circuit on this issue.

v. Leonesio, ¶ 10 (App. 2011), when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue,” Rule 50(a)(1); Desert Mountain Props.

v. Leonesio, ¶ 24 (App. 2011) (“We are not .

v. Leonesio, ¶ 21 (App. 2011).