DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, 968 P.2d 612.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Rondan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    at 64, 378 P.2d at 743-44; Sheppard v. Crow-Barker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 43
  • Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    at 64, 378 P.2d at 743; Sheppard v. Crow-Barker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 43
  • 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
    See Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., ¶ 21, Young Candy & Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 53
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Nold v. Nold 304 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    See Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, -47, ¶¶ 37-40 , -20 (App.1998) (court’s decision to consider issues not presented in a pretrial statement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
  • Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Sheppard v. Crow-Barker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, , (holding that “reviewing court will not alter a jury’s damage verdict unless it finds the amount so unreasonable that it ‘shocks the conscience’ of the court.”).
  • In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 47 The City argues, however, that a single unapportioned offer to a parent who brings an action on her own behalf and that of minor children would not bar Rule 68 sanctions, citing Sheppard v. Crow-Barker Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 58
  • Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1, ¶¶ 56-58
  • Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, -49, ¶¶ 48-52 , -22 (App.1998) (affirming jury instruction that refused to let jury speculate on star high school basketball player’s possible earnings during a professional career).
  • Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    They further argue that the unapportioned offer does not fall within what they argue is the “sole exception to the apportionment rule” created by Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 56-58
  • 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’ship
  • Smethers v. Campion 108 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Smethers v. Campion 108 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    ¶ 16 , Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶53
  • Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    Brush Wellman argues that the trial court properly imposed sanctions against the Gamezes because it granted summary judgment for Brush Wellman on all claims and, pointing to Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, , that its offer did not need to be apportioned between the parties and their claims due to the “derivative and joint nature of Alice Gamez’ claim.” ¶22 In Sheppard , the trial court properly imposed Rule 68(d) sanctions on a defendant for failing to accept a single offer
  • Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
  • Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
    Acheson, 107 Ariz. at 579 , 490 P.2d at 835 (quoting Young Candy & , ); see also Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship
  • Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Distinguished Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    In Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, , however, this Court tacitly addressed the question.
  • Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    The jury verdict that found the damages does not meet those requirements and, therefore, does not qualify as a “judgment.” Cf. Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, ¶¶ 8, 10 , ¶¶ 8, 10 (App.1998) (differentiating verdict from judgment).
  • 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
    ¶ 57 When the evidence justifies a damages award, the amount to be awarded is “a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and the award will not be overturned or tampered with unless we find that the verdict was, indeed, the result of passion or prejudice.” Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, ¶ 53
  • Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    In Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership, , we held that Duke did not apply to require apportionment between a minor seeking damages for personal injury and a father requesting reimbursement of medical costs, because those "two aspects of an individual personal injury claim ...