DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 907 P.2d 506.

70 citing documents.

  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (concluding jury verdict liquidated claim making it entitled to prejudgment interest).
  • Soto v. Ten Bridges Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Soto v. Ten Bridges Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co.
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Hotel Corp. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, ("Arizona's courts do not hesitate to overturn excessive or inadequate punitive damage awards.").
  • Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 36 (App. 2006) (noting this court “will not disturb a jury’s damage award unless it is ‘so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court’”) (quoting Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 57 ¶ 3); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (in reviewing jury’s damages verdict, this court “accord[s] the greatest possible discretion to the [superior] court because, like the jury, it has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe the demeanor of witnesses”).
  • 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
    Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (citing Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut.
  • Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Erdmann v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    B. The Evidence Permitted the Jury to Award Punitive Damages to Erdmann and Lechner ¶30 A plaintiff may recover punitive damages by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant “engaged in aggravated and outrageous conduct with an evil mind.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (internal quotations omitted).
  • Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , ( , ), two distinctly different conclusions could be drawn from the jury’s decision not to award Gloor a contractual offset or recoupment for the bakery product she provided Summers.
  • Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Helal v. Winski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Hyattt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (when superior court properly instructs jury, an appellate court “must presume that the jury obeyed such instructions”); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (“We must assume on review that the jury followed the instructions of the trial court.”).
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    The Laoses also rely on Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, P.2d 506 (App. 1995).
  • Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 61 A plaintiff may “meet the clear and convincing standard by either direct or circumstantial evidence,” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , and we may infer an “evil mind” from a defendant’s conduct or objectives.
  • SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    “A defendant acts with the requisite evil mind when he intends to injure or defraud, or deliberately interferes with the rights of others, consciously disregarding the unjustifiable substantial risk of significant harm to them.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (quotation omitted).
  • In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Precision Heavy Haul, Inc. v. Trail King Industries, Inc. 228 P.3d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Precision Heavy Haul, Inc. v. Trail King Industries, Inc. 228 P.3d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • 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
    See Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (applying the assumption that a jury follows the trial court’s instructions).
  • Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    its agent’s conduct “because there was insufficient evidence to support a punitive damages award against the agent,” we have, in subsequent cases confirmed that our state’s common law doctrine of respondeat superior “allows punitive liability against a principal for the conduct of its agent without any showing of the principal’s evil mind.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
  • Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    I. ¶ 10 An attorney-malpractice claim based on the lawyer’s allegedly negligent acts or omissions in the litigation context essentially requires analysis of “ ‘the case within the ease.’” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , -75 , -13 (App.1986).
  • Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Co., , (holding whether party concealed evidence was pertinent to jury’s assessment of the reprehensibility of party’s conduct for purposes of punitive damages award); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (noting attorney’s act in concealing information from client pertinent to punitive damage inquiry).
  • Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Co., -32 , -81 (1986)); see also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (“To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in aggravated and outrageous conduct with an evil mind.”) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, -31 , -17 (App.1995); -41 , -26 (App. 1991).
  • Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, -31 , -17 (App.1995); -41 , -26 (App. 1991).