Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cotterhill v. Bafile, 865 P.2d 120.

30 citing documents.

Brandon J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brandon J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The prejudice “must affirmatively appear from the record.” (quoting Walters v. First Fed.
Sanders v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanders v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶15 “In determining whether a jury instruction should be given, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the requesting party, and if there is evidence tending to establish the theory proposed in the instruction, it should be given.”
Ibarra v. Gastelum 471 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ibarra v. Gastelum 471 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶17 Similarly, -79, -23 (App. 1993), Division One of this court concluded that a bar owner could be held liable for one patron’s reasonably foreseeable intentional torts against another patron.
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Lifeflite Medical Air Transport, Inc. v. Native American Air Services, Inc. 7 P.3d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lifeflite Medical Air Transport, Inc. v. Native American Air Services, Inc. 7 P.3d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“The purpose of jury instructions is to explain the applicable law to the jury in terms that it can understand.” -80 , -24 (1993).
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
“In determining whether a jury instruction should be given, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the requesting party.” , (citation omitted).
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co., , , (citation omitted).
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
y fails to show that prior accidents occurred under conditions or at locations substantially similar to the conditions resulting in the accident at issue, they are not admissible on issues of fault or notice because “[wjithout a foundational showing that other accidents occurred under similar conditions and for similar reasons, such evidence is prejudicial to the defendant.” ( , ).
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The burden is the appellant’s to show prejudice, which must “affirmatively appear from the record.”
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998