Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc., 9 P.3d 1088.

34 citing documents.

Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We will “uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count, issue or theory sustains the verdict.” Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, ¶ 64 (App. 2000).
Terry v. UPS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Terry v. UPS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Danko v. Dumas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Danko v. Dumas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Deserts Images, LLC, ¶ 8 n.4 (App. 2008) (quoting Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., ¶ 36 (App. 2000)).
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Murcott v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., ¶ 64 (App. 2000).
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Navigators v. First Mercury Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., ¶ 36 (App. 2000).
Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Int'l, Inc., ¶ 15, ( ); see also Murcott v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., ¶ 41, ( P.2d 250 (1986) and Wagenseller).
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 Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., ¶¶ 64, 66, 17 With regard to other government officials, the court instructed the jury without objection that, although Petta could not be held liable for complaining to government officials, the jury could “consider the underlying substance of the statements made as evidence
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 24, Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., ¶ 64
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, e.g., Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., ¶ 34 , see also Ariz. R. Civ.
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
We use the terms interchangeably, as “[t]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc.
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
We will “uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count, issue or theory sustains the verdict.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 64, P.2d 467 (1970).
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Data Sales Co. v. Diamond Z Manufacturing 74 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“[W]e view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Murcott v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., ¶ 36
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., ¶ 64 , (holding court will uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count, issue, or theory sustains the verdict).
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Murcott v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., ¶ 43 , (quoting United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen.
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 On appeal from the denial of a motion for JMOL, “we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., ¶ 36
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Cummins v. Mold-In Graphic Systems 26 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
6 See Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., -57, ¶¶ 37-46 , -96 (App.2000) (addressing a whisteblower situation); Meeks v. Computer Assocs.
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., ¶ 2