Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 907 P.2d 506.
- Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc.
148 P.3d 91
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“We must assume on review that the jury followed the instructions of the trial court.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
- Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, (when trial court has refused to interfere in jury’s determination of damages, appellate court will interpose its own judgment only if convinced that verdict is so excessive as to suggest it was based on passion or prejudice); see also Sheppard v. Crow-Barker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’sh
- DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-
DeSilva v. Baker
96 P.3d 1084
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
of the original action would have been successful.” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co., v. Winston & Strawn, , (citing Asphalt Eng’r, Inc., v. Galusha, -37 , -83 (App.1989)).
- Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney
96 P.3d 1070
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (“To recover compensatory damages in a legal malpractice action the plaintiff must prove that but for the attorney’s negligence, the prosecution or defense of the original action would have been successful.”).
- Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo 79 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
-
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C. v. Naranjo
79 P.3d 1206
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
5 , (award of *455 actual damages is prerequisite to recovery of exemplary damages); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (“A plaintiff must be entitled to compensatory damages before being entitled to punitive damages.”).
- Mealey v. Arndt 76 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-
Mealey v. Arndt
76 P.3d 892
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
- Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-
Golonka v. General Motors Corp.
65 P.3d 956
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (“We must assume on review that the jury followed the instructions of the trial court.”).
- Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army
24 P.3d 1274
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sys., Inc., , see also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
- Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
Schmitz v. Aston
3 P.3d 1184
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
These factors include the following: “(1) the reprehensibility of [the] defendant’s conduct and the severity of the harm likely to result, (2) any harm that has occurred, (3) the duration of the misconduct, (4) the defendant’s awareness of the harm or the risk of harm, and (5) any concealment of [the wrongful conduct].” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
- Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc.
994 P.2d 1030
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“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,’ ” Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , that is, with intent “to injure or defraud, or deliberately interfere[ ] with the rights of others, ‘consciously disregarding the unjustifiablfy] substantial risk of significant harm to them.’ ” Id., quoting Linthicum, 150 Ariz. at 331 , 723 P.2d at 680 .