DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C., 254 P.3d 397.

25 citing documents.

  • Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    As noted supra, a superior court should order remittitur only when there is insufficient evidence to support the damages award or if there is a “clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011).
  • Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    That discretion may be exercised “only for the most cogent reasons, such as lack of evidence supporting the damages awarded” or given “a clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages.” Desert Palm, 236 Ariz. at 581, ¶ 38; ¶ 14 (App. 2011).
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Such remittitur is proper “only for the most cogent of reasons, such as lack of evidence supporting the damages awarded.” Id.; ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (noting that “a clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages” may be a proper basis for remittitur); ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (noting that “substantial evidence” sufficient to support a verdict is evidence that would permit a reasonable
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶55 "It is 'well settled in Arizona that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.'" ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (); (holding that unless a verdict is the result of passion or prejudice, we must affirm if the "case has been submitted on correct rulings and instructions, and the verdict is within the range
  • Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
    at 520 ¶ 14 ( ¶ 13 (App. 2011)).
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Ahmad, 240 Ariz. at 385, ¶ 10; ¶ 14 (App. 2011).
  • Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In determining whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict, “we look to the broad scope of the trial and not for evidence to support a different conclusion or inference than that reached by the jury.” , 162 ¶ 12
  • Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    5 SOTO v. SACCO et al. Opinion of the Court exaggerated measurement of damages,” though it is not “shockingly or flagrantly outrageous.”4 ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2011).
  • 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
    ¶ 11 McConnell points to , as authority for her position that a final judgment is not required to start Rule 59’s 15-day time limit.
  • Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
  • Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
    164 ¶ 20, (“The court may not ...
  • 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
    The amount of a damages award is “‘a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.’”