DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Pankratz, 2 P.3d 1266.

28 citing documents.

  • JOHNSON v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • JOHNSON v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 6 (App. 2000), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 13 (1965).
  • Ivey v. Captiva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Ivey v. Captiva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    JMOL “should be granted only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.” ¶ 4 (App. 2000).
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 13 (App. 2000); see also Swift Transp., CV-20-0119-PR, at *5, ¶ 23 n.2 (inference of evil mind).
  • Hettenhaus v. Jugans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Hettenhaus v. Jugans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 19 (App. 2000) (When the trial court acts as factfinder, “we may treat a directed verdict based on the insufficiency of the evidence as a judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c).”).
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    The existence of an “evil mind” may be “express or may be implied from the nature of the acts and the circumstances.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).
  • Gonzalez v. Roney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Gonzalez v. Roney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Emp v. Prieto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Emp v. Prieto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    The “motion should be granted only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.” ¶ 4 (App. 2000).
  • Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    3 ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (“[A] battery entitling a plaintiff to compensatory damages may also entitle her to punitive damages.
  • Santos v. Trolley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Santos v. Trolley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The “motion should be granted only if the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.” ¶ 4 (App. 2000).
  • Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
  • Susan Ryan v. napier/klein 425 P.3d 230 Ariz. 2018
    ¶ 6 (App. 2000); Restatement § 13.
  • Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    3 MOTHERSHED v. GREENEN Decision of the Court Ariz. 621, 626 ¶ 19, (reviewing court may treat directed verdict in bench trial as judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c), analog to A.R.F.L.P 82(c)).
  • Chappell v. Wenholz 247 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Chappell v. Wenholz 247 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    2 See Mein, 219 Ariz. at 100, ¶ 19 , 193 P.3d at 794 ; ¶ 6
  • Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    5 “We review the grant of a motion for directed verdict de novo and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”