DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC., 265 P.3d 1061.

34 citing documents.

  • Green Cross v. Mangisi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Green Cross v. Mangisi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Brown v. Arizona Natures Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Brown v. Arizona Natures Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    In considering such a post-verdict motion, a court will “view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict,” ¶ 10 (App. 2011), recognizing “[i]t is the jury’s burden alone to weigh the credibility of witnesses and draw inferences from the evidence presented at trial,” Zuluaga v. Bashas, Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2017).
  • Premier Consulting v. Peace Releaf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Premier Consulting v. Peace Releaf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “[W]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict.” ¶ 10.
  • Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Miller v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “[W]e apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial.” McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2011).
  • Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    when reviewing an order granting a new trial than an order denying one.” ¶ 16 (App. 2011).
  • Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Valdez v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The court “may not weigh the credibility of witnesses or resolve conflicts of evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,” but must instead “give full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom.” McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Dupray v. Jai Dining 432 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2011), but “must give ‘full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, 4 DUPRAY, et al. v. JAI DINING Opinion of the Court weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom[,]’” id.
  • Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Mcbride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2011).
  • Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -81, ¶¶ 16-19 (1998); accord McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2011).
  • Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6, (citation omitted); McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16
  • Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Inc., ¶ 23, (holding, to establish equitable estoppel, the party must show 1) affirmative acts by the 6 JACKSON WHITE v. DOS LAND Decision of the Court other party inconsistent with its prior claim
  • Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶19 Given this broader discretion, some cases describe the judge’s role as “the ‘thirteenth juror’ (the ninth juror in a civil case).” ¶ 23 (1998); Thomas, 104 Ariz. at 412; McBride v. Kieckhefer Associates, Inc., ¶ 20 (App. 2011).
  • Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16, (-38, -22 (1977); Delbridge v. Salt River Project Agric.
  • Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Butler v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 10
  • 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
    See McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 16, (noting denial of motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  • Burch & Cracchiolo v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Burch & Cracchiolo v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., ¶ 10