Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America, 837 P.2d 1143.

28 citing documents.

White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
White v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sudberry v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sudberry v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 12-2506(B), (F)(2); (stating a trial court should give a requested jury instruction if there is “any evidence tending to establish the theory posed in the instruction, .
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
n.6, n.6 (App. 1991) (addressing “other issues raised on appeal” as a matter of judicial economy “because they may reoccur on a retrial”); State ex rel.
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“A trial court may instruct a jury on assigning fault to a non party only if evidence offered at trial is adequate to support the jury finding that the non[]party was negligent.” Tumbling-T, 222 Ariz. at 540, ¶ 83 , 217 P.3d at 1245 ; , (a trial court should give a requested jury instruction if there is “any evidence tending to establish the theory posed in the instruction,” even if contradictory facts are presented).
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“A trial court must give a requested instruction if (1) the evidence presented supports the instruction, (2) the instruction is proper under the law, and (3) the instruction pertains to an important issue that is not dealt with in any other instruction.”
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Casualty of California Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Casualty of California Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“The doctrine of fundamental error is sparingly applied in civil cases, and only when the error ‘deprives a party of the right to a fair trial.’” , (quoting Maxwell v. Aetna Life Ins.
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
Piner v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa 962 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1998
See, e.g., Holtz, , ; , (applying the indivisible injury rule to a second impact, crashworthiness case); see also Michael A. Beale, Torts — Liability—Indepen dent Tortfeasors Jointly and Severally Liable for Separate Acts of Negligence Where Harm is Indivisible Holtz v. Holder (Ariz.1966), 9 Ariz. L. Rev
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See generally Allstate Insurance Co. v. O’Toole, , , , , (trial court properly rejected proposed amendment which would have added a new design defect theory seven weeks before trial).
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Gosewisch, 153 Ariz. at 407 , 737 P.2d at 383 ; -49 , -63 (App.1982); -16 , -51 (App.1992).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by