Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gasiorowski v. Hose, 897 P.2d 678.

38 citing documents.

Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(explaining an abuse of discretion must result in demonstrable prejudice to a complaining party to be considered reversible error).
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., ¶ 7 (App. 1998) ().
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, (“Exclusion of evidence, though improper, is not grounds for reversal if ‘in all probability its admission 6 TONDU, et al. v. STATE FARM Decision of the Court would not have changed the result.’”) (quoting Grah
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
9 WETHERILT, et al. v. MOORE Decision of the Court 807, 810 (App. 1998) ( ).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 17 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2007)); (); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
sure ulcers was “overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence, and would violate peer review/quality assurance processes—not to mention federal HIPAA[ 15 ] rules and regulations.” In their response, the Rasors asserted “[t]h[e] discovery is calculated to lead to evidence of habit or routine,” P.2d 678 (App. 1994), and that it may lead to discovery of recognition by [NWMC] of certain policies, practices and prevention p
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“[E]stablishing habit requires more than a sparse selection of isolated episodes.”
FRED MILLER M.D., Et Ux. v. LUZ BARRERA, MUTUAL INSURANCE CO 130 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
FRED MILLER M.D., Et Ux. v. LUZ BARRERA, MUTUAL INSURANCE CO 130 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶11 P.2d 678 (App. 1994), does not require us to reach a different result.
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Cb v. Sabalos Ex Rel. County of Pima 7 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Ziegler (permitting discovery of portions of medical charts of twenty-four non-party patients of defendant cardiologists in an action against them and hospital for unnecessary implantation of heart pacemaker); , (finding admissible in malpractice action against anesthesiologist evidence of other episodes in which he had difficulty with same procedure on other patients).
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
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
*469 ¶ 22 , as showing reversible error in precluding impeachment.
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997