Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodriguez v. Williams, 489 P.2d 268.

26 citing documents.

US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ash v. Flieger 578 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Ash v. Flieger 578 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers, 16 Ariz.App.
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See also Rodriguez v. Williams, 10 , Ahmed v. Collins, 23 Ariz.App.
Cedic Development Corp. v. Sibole 541 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Cedic Development Corp. v. Sibole 541 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
(instructions) ; , (misconduct); Nichols v. Elkins, 2 Ariz.App.
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
as authority for admitting the accident report into evidence.
Johnson v. Elliott 537 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1975
Johnson v. Elliott 537 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1975
We have repeatedly held “that the grant or denial of such motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, barring a manifest abuse of that discretion, the lower court’s decision will be upheld on appeal.”
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Woods v. Harker 523 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
With regard to defendants’ appeal, we note as an initial matter that a trial court has considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion for new trial, , , and its decision relating thereto will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse oí discretion.
Killingsworth v. Nottingham 501 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Killingsworth v. Nottingham 501 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Keck v. Kelley 492 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Keck v. Kelley 492 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
This case was briefly discussed in Rodriguez v. Williams, Ariz.
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
O’Malley v. Cover, 221 F.2d *56 156 (8th Cir. 1955); , ; LaBonne v. First Nat.
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
that: “Rule 50(b) provides that a party ‘who has moved for a directed verdict’ may, not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a direc