Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 892.

28 citing documents.

Douros v. Morse 560 P.3d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Douros v. Morse 560 P.3d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Ct., Troxel, 530 U.S. at 80 (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining that strict scrutiny should apply to infringement of a parents’ “fundamental constitutional right to rear their children”).
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
hat a lay person would have no difficulty recognizing it,” Asphalt Eng’rs, -36 (App. 1989), or the allegedly negligent 8 FONG v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al. Opinion of the Court “act or omission comes within the realm of common knowledge,” ().
Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Kestenbaum v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Of Maricopa, –21 (App. 1997) (noting that expert testimony is required to prove professional negligence when issues are “strictly within the special and technical knowledge of the profession and not within the knowledge of the average layman”).
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
of Maricopa, (“[T]he Arizona constitution does not assure the right to bring a frivolous lawsuit.”).
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[T]he major objective of Rule 56(f) is to insure [sic] that a diligent party is given a reasonable opportunity to prepare his case.”) (quotation omitted); Jones v. MEA, Inc., 160 So.
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(citation and quotation omitted).
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶23 Further, “[t]he function of an expert witness is to provide testimony on subjects that are beyond the common sense, experience and education of the average juror.” (citation omitted); see, e.g., Hunter Contracting Co., -21 (App. 1997) (“Expert testimony is necessary to prove professional negligence when question to be determined is strictly within the special and technical knowledge of the profession and not within the knowledge of the average layman.”) (citation omitted); (“Neglige
Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponce v. Parker Fire District 322 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
4 In Hunter Contracting Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (Maricopa County), , for example, we reviewed a statutory restriction imposed upon a plaintiffs choice of an expert witness.
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
However, “[t]he ‘major objective’ of Rule 56(f) is ‘to insure that a diligent party is given a reasonable opportunity to prepare his case.’” Hunter Contracting Co., quoting Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2741 (2d ed. 1983).
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 79 , 688 P.2d at 971 ; Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found., , *459
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Another panel of this court has recently held, , that A.R.S.