Cited by

A directed verdict should be granted only if the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, “has so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.”

We review the entry of judgment as a matter of law de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 93 (App. 2011) ().

Judgment as a matter of law is proper “only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.”

Robertson, 202 Ariz. at 290–91, ¶ 14 (–66 (1997)).

P. 50(a); ("if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant").

11 ¶ 12, (summary judgment); (directed verdict/judgment as a matter of law).

See Pope, 219 Ariz. at 490, ¶ 51, 200 P.3d at 987 ( , ).

of Maricopa Cnty., - 66, -04 (App. 1997).

A trial coui’t properly grants JMOL “only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.”

A court properly grants JMOL “only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.”

Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank of Ariz., N.A.

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate "only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.”

Shoen v. Shoen, *291 -66 , -04 (1997).

A trial court should grant a jmol “only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.” , review denied (Mar.