DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gordon v. Liguori, 895 P.2d 523.

26 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See generally Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety
  • Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2015); (an adverse inference is appropriate “under limited circumstances” when a party fails to call a witness).
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Rozenman v. Blanco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (declining to find waiver when the issue was argued before the trial and the court made a tentative ruling on it).
  • C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    7 On appeal Father argues only that (1) the juvenile court misapplied Melissa W. because the court did not notify him, prior to the close of the hearing, as to what evidence the court was lacking; and (2)
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    to support its argument that Arizona law precludes comment on the defense's failure to call the examiner.
  • State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ess, the superior court may consider “whether the witness was under the control of the party who failed to call him or her;” “whether the party failed to call a seemingly available witness whose testimony it would naturally be expected to produce if it were favorable;” and “whether the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact is uniquely within the knowledge of the witness.” (citations omitted).
  • Melissa W. v. Department of Child Safety 357 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Melissa W. v. Department of Child Safety 357 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    2 MELISSA W. v. DEP’T OF CHILD SAFETY Opinion of the Court Melissa did not testify.2 Citing, inter alia, P.2d 523 (App. 1995), the court stated in its ruling that “the circumstances here warrant drawing an adverse inference against [Melissa] for choosing not to testify.” It observed that Melissa was in a unique position to explain whether and how she benefited from services
  • State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    er,” the superior court may consider “whether the witness was under the control of the party who failed to call him or her”; “whether the party failed to call a seemingly available witness whose testimony it would naturally be expected to produce if it were favorable”; and “whether the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact is uniquely within the knowledge of the witness.” (citations omitted); accord Kean v. C.I.R., 469 F.2d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1972) (“The determination of the question of
  • Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    [for] a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.”
  • State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ‘because defendants did not call the subject experts, the jury knew nothing about them and there was no need to explain why they did not testify.’” Id.
  • Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Gordon v. Liguori, 182 P.2d 523 (App. 1995); see also Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., P.2d 609 (App. 1988).
  • Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    However, , a medical malpractice case, this court held that the trial court did not err in precluding comment by the plaintiffs on the defendants’ failure to call experts.