Cited by

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015); ¶ 10 (App. 2023) (A judgment must comply with the applicable procedural rules.).

v. Petta, ¶ 22 (App. 2015) (citations omitted); Strojnik v. Gen.

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015) (“As a general rule, our review is limited to matters designated in the notice of appeal[.]”).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, (non-movants’ conclusory statements, “unsupported by any documentary evidence,” were speculative); (self-serving assertions lacking factual support are insufficient to defeat summary judgment).

v. Petta, n.1 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 42 (App. 2015) (plaintiffs’ testimony and conclusory statements regarding damages, “unsupported by any documentary evidence,” were speculative); Modular Mining Sys., Inc., 221 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 19 (“Sheer speculation is insufficient .

v. Petta, ¶ 23 n.13 (App. 2015) (describing the difference between general and special damages).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 29 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶¶ 53-54 (App. 2015) (debtor’s pre- petition tort claim is property of bankruptcy estate); cf. Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 379 (1966) (“[T]he term ‘property’ has been construed most generously and an interest is not outside its reach because it is novel or contingent or because enjoyment must be postponed.”).

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015) ("As a general rule, our review is limited to matters designated in the notice of appeal or cross-appeal.").

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015) (explaining appellate courts have an independent duty to examine jurisdiction).

v. Petta, ¶ 19 (App. 2015) (concluding notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction when the non-specified orders “were all part of the same determination on the same claims”).

v. Petta, ¶ 19 (App. 2015) (concluding notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction when the non- specified orders "were all part of the same determination on the same claims").

v. Petta, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) (affirming denial of judgment as a matter of law on a false light claim because “[t]he jury was in the best position to resolve .

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015).