Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Styles v. Ceranski, 916 P.2d 1164.

100 citing documents.

Linscott v. Heshion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Linscott v. Heshion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“It is not only our right, but our duty, to set aside a verdict if there is no evidence in the record to justify it.” (citation modified)).
Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[I]f any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict, we will affirm the judgment.”
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
This court reviews a ruling on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion, “given the record and circumstances of the case.” (citation omitted); –51 ¶¶ 11–25 (2017) (discussing broad discretion afforded to a trial court in addressing a motion for new trial in criminal and civil cases).
Ochoa v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Ochoa v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We will reverse the denial of a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence only if the verdict “reflects a manifest abuse of discretion given the record.”
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Zubia v. Shapiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Of Maricopa Cnty., ¶ 14 (App. 2009)
Bordner v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bordner v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thompson v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thompson v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bellemare v. Lemon Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Moirbia v. Bonnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Moirbia v. Bonnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
When “reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict,” and will affirm the judgment “if any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict.”
Antseliovich v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Antseliovich v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We will reverse the superior court’s denial of a motion for new trial and/or additur “only if it reflects a manifest abuse of discretion given the record and circumstances of the case.” see also Warne Investments, ¶ 33 (App. 2008).
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating that this court must set aside a verdict “if there is no evidence in the record to justify it”).
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This court will reverse a ruling on a motion for new trial “only if it reflects a manifest abuse of discretion given the record and circumstances of the case.”
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
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
CO. Opinion of the Court But, “[p]artial new trials are not recommended because they create much opportunity for confusion and injustice.”
Miller v. Fnma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Miller v. Fnma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶18 We will uphold the denial of a motion for new trial unless it “reflects a manifest abuse of discretion given the record and circumstances of the case.”
Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lockhart v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See supra, at ¶ 18 n.3; (stating that in reviewing a motion for new trial, court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and [] resolve all inferences against the defendant.”); (same).
Soverign v. Integrated Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Soverign v. Integrated 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
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
20 (“Partial new trials are not recommended because they create much opportunity for confusion and injustice.” (citations omitted)); ¶ 15, (“Any doubt should be resolved in favor of a trial
Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Smith v. Frederick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014