Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Dupray v. Jai Dining, 432 P.3d 937.
- Kimminau Law Firm, P.C. v. Melody Hoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
- Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Ochoa v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Ochoa v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(Phoenix), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018).
- Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Litmath v. US Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Litmath v. US Fire
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(Phx.), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018).
- In Re: Ms2020-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
In Re: Ms2020-000001
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶17 “A court may grant [judgment as a matter of law] only when ‘a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for [a] party’ on an issue that is necessary to the party’s claim or defense.” Dupray v. JAI Dining Services (Phx.), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018) (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.
- Warford v. 99 Cents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Warford v. 99 Cents
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, e.g., Dupray v. JAI Dining Services (Phoenix), Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2018) (“A plaintiff suing for negligence must prove, inter alia, a ‘causal connection’ between the defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s resulting injuries.”).
- Roberto Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2021
-
Roberto Torres v. Jai Dining Services
Ariz. 2021
(Phx.), Inc., –84 ¶¶ 17–18 (App. 2018).
- Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Benedict v. Total Transit
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(Phx.), Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2018).
- Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Aspen v. Wakefield
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(Phoenix), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018).
- Neary v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Neary v. Abor
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(Phx.), Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2018).
- Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Synergy v. Singh
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(Phoenix), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018).
- Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Navigators v. First Mercury
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(Phx.), Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2018).
- Harianto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Harianto v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dupray v. JAI Dining Services (Phoenix), Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2018).
- White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
White v. 1st Choice
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(Phx.), Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2018).
- State v. Cepeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Cepeda
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
nscious and drowning after accident was not a superseding cause); ¶ 8 (App. 4 STATE v. CEPEDA Decision of the Court ¶10 Cepeda cites to civil cases -- and Dupray v. JAI Dining Services (Phoenix), Inc., -- arguing that criminal law concerning superseding, intervening cause should require the same type of jury instructions as in civil cases.