Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Larsen v. Decker, 995 P.2d 281.

102 citing documents.

Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (App. 2000) (evidentiary rulings) (citing Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, ); ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (discovery rulings); Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., ¶ 38 (App. 2014) (motion to continue) (citing Alberta Sec.
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 571, ¶ 7 ( ¶ 19 (App. 2000), ).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flynn v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6, (citations omitted).
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6, (citations omitted).
Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chapa v. Housman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 6, (“We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion; we will not reverse unless unfair prejudice resulted, or the court incorrectly applied the law.” (citations omitted)).
Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Langendorf v. Buckeye Water Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Langendorf v. Buckeye Water Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on disclosure and discovery matters, and this court will not disturb that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.”); ¶ 6, (“We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion[.]”); -03, ¶ 12, -19 (App. 2009) (citation omitted) (noting that a court abuses its discretion when the record fails to provide sub
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, 995 1 The trial court later amended its judgment to reflect a mathematical error, and reduced the awarded amount to $188,959.37.
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co., (reviewing trial court’s motion in limine ruling on appeal); ¶¶ 6-8, (reviewing trial court’s evidentiary rulings on appeal); Stapert v. Ariz. Bd.
Wendland v. ADOBEAIR, INC. 221 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Wendland v. ADOBEAIR, INC. 221 P.3d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
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
3 “[A] damages award is within the jury’s province and ‘will not be disturbed on appeal except where the verdict is so exorbitant as to show passion, prejudice, mistake, or complete disregard of the evidence.’” ¶ 28 , (quoting Valley Nat’l , ).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
995 2 Although McCurdy argued in his opening brief the court also erred if the evidence was admitted under Rule 803(8), Ariz. R. Evid., , the state in its answering brief and McCurdy in his reply brief agree this exception does not apply and we therefore do not consider it.
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“[A] damages award is within the jury’s province.”).
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶40 Further, although the jury’s verdict fell outside the range of possible values discussed by the experts at trial, the verdict was within the range discussed by Pierce and is not “so exorbitant as to show passion, prejudice, mistake or a complete disregard of the evidence.” ¶ 14 , (quoting Valley Nat’l , ).
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(we review denial of motion for new trial for manifest abuse of discretion).
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(denial of motion for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
¶ 12, see also Williams, 132 F.3d at 1128-29 (weighing the probative value of a determination, which was found to be Painting asserts that a mini-trial would be necessary on each of these points.
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003