Cited by

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 30 (App. 2015) (noting that "once the jury found [defendant's] statements were defamatory .

v. Petta, ¶ 29 (App. 2015) (actual malice an element of false light invasion of privacy).

v. Petta, ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 21 (App. 2015) (noting that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment entered after trial on the merits); Schwartz v. Superior Court In & For Cty.

v. Petta, ¶ 21–22 (App. 2015) (denial of summary judgment appealable when reasserted in post-trial motion).

v. Petta, -86, ¶¶ 53-54 (App. 2015) (holding that a party had standing for a pre-petition claim of medical battery when the bankruptcy court denied the bankruptcy trustee’s attempt to sell the claim); Foltin v. Foltin, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0496 FC, 2016 WL 1329582, at *2, ¶ 7 n.1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr.

Cf. Desert Palm Surgical Grp., ¶ 21 (App. 2015) (reasoning that permitting review “could lead to the absurd result that one who has sustained his position after a full trial and a more complete presentation of the evidence might nevertheless be reversed on appeal because he had failed to prove his case more fully at the time of the hearing of

v. Petta, ¶ 42 (App. 2015) (concluding the plaintiff’s testimony and conclusory statements regarding damages, “unsupported by any documentary evidence,” were speculative).

v. Petta, ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).

v. Petta, ¶ 42 (App. 2015) (concluding the plaintiff’s testimony and conclusory statements regarding damages, “unsupported by any documentary evidence,” were speculative).

v. Petta, –84 ¶¶ 43–44 (App. 2015) (finding that the damage award was not supported where it could not be reconciled with other Arizona civil jury verdicts).

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).

v. Petta, ¶ 27, (citation omitted).

p., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1162 9 “If the jury finds that a defamatory statement of objective fact (beyond mere hyperbole) exists, it should then consider actual damage to [the plaintiff’s] reputation in the real world by measuring the defamatory aspect of [the statement] by its natural and probable effect on the mind of the average recipient.” Desert Palm Surgical Grp., ¶ 28 (App. 2015) (citations omitted).

v. Petta, ¶ 25 (App. 2015) (citations omitted).

v. Petta, ¶ 15 (App. 2015), and we therefore requested supplemental briefing regarding the timeliness of the Sotos’ appeal.

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015), and consider each of Baron’s proffered grounds for a new trial below to the extent those grounds may have affected the dismissal for discovery violations.

v. Petta, ¶ 37 (App. 2015).