Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Acheson v. Shafter, 490 P.2d 832.

57 citing documents.

Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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 Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., ¶ 21, Young Candy & Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 53
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
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶35 CBD also asserts that the punitive damage award was “excessive, manifestly unfair, and unreasonable.” for the proposition that we should vacate a punitive damage award if the verdict 19 is “so exorbitant as to indicate passion, prejudice, [or] mistake.” In denying CBD’s post-trial motions, the trial court stated it was f
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
s. Co., , (finding that exemplary damages are designed “to express society’s disapproval of outrageous conduct and to deter such conduct by the defendant and others in the future”); Linthicum, 150 Ariz. at 330 , 723 P.2d at 679 (stating that such damages are “to punish the wrongdoer and to deter others from emulating his conduct”); , (declaring that “[pjunitive damages are allowed on grounds of public policy”).
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The appropriate test of passion or prejudice is whether the verdict is “ ‘so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the Court.’ ” , (quoting Young Candy & , ).
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The test is whether the verdict is “so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the Court.” , (citing Young Candy & , ); see also Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Rushing 749 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1988
State v. Rushing 749 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1988
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
See, e.g., Nielson v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. at 341 , 419 P.2d at 520
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Puz v. McDonald 680 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Puz v. McDonald 680 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jowdy v. Guerin, 10 Ariz.App.
Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Currie v. Dooley 647 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Punitive damages may be proper in an action for conversion, , or where a party is dispossessed of his property.
Huggins v. Deinhard 621 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Huggins v. Deinhard 621 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D’Ascoli, , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (1979).
Smith v. Chapman 565 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Smith v. Chapman 565 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
See the following cases for the type of conduct supporting an award for punitive damages: , Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates, 21 Ariz.App.
Ulan v. Vend-A-Coin, Inc. 558 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Ulan v. Vend-A-Coin, Inc. 558 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
SeLlinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
94 P. 1094 (1908); , 249 P. 751 (1926)
Atkinson v. Marquart 541 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1975
Atkinson v. Marquart 541 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Nielson v. Flashberg, supra [ , ]; Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 908 Comment a.” , and we also said: “In Arizona, the law is well settled that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury and such award will not be disturbed on appeal except for the most cogent of reasons, i. e., the verdict is so exorbitant as to indicat
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
Valley National Bank v. Brown 517 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1974
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973