DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Creamer v. Troiano, 503 P.2d 794.

82 citing documents.

  • Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Generally, the amount of damages to award falls “peculiarly within the province of the jury.” –77 (1972).
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Fischer, 242 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 21
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    "It is 'well settled in Arizona that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.'" ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (); (holding that unless a verdict is the result of passion or prejudice, we must affirm if the "case has been submitted on correct rulings and instructions, and the verdict is within the range of credible evidence").
  • Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
  • Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
    See Fischer, 242 Ariz. at 44 ¶ 11, 50 ¶ 19 (“Arizona courts use essentially the same standard in civil and criminal cases,” and “[a] trial court considering a motion for a new trial must respect the role of the jury and the integrity of the jury trial system.”); (“Almost always when there is a conflict in the evidence, the trial judge should not interfere with what is peculiarly the jury’s function.”).
  • Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Rotalo v. Sahd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶17 In reviewing the trial court’s determination of a proposed adjustment of a verdict, we follow the doctrine “that if the verdict is supported by adequate evidence, it will not be disturbed, and the greatest possible discretion is in the hands of the trial judge.” -41 (1973) (- 77 (1972) (recognizing that trial judge’s ruling on additur, remittitur, and new trial on a claim of an inadequate or excessive verdict generally will be affirmed because, like the jury, the trial judge has had the oppo
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Soto v. Sacco 372 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    prudence involving additurs and remittiturs, our supreme court explained that, like the jury, the trial judge has “the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor on the stand, and his ruling on additur, remittitur, and new trial, because of an inadequate or excessive verdict, will generally be affirmed, because it will nearly always be more soundly based than ours can be.”
  • Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Phoenix v. Cortes 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
    Chief Justice Hays explained the test for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on additur, remittitur, and new trial because of an inadequate or excessive verdict as follows: From what we have written, it is obvious that the test for reviewing the granting or refusing
  • Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    We also review the denial of post-trial motions for an abuse of discretion, “recognizing that [the trial court] ha[s] significant latitude in deciding whether to upset the [jury’s] verdict.” Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 53, ¶ 12, 961 P.2d at 451 ( -34, -53 (App. 1983)).
  • Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    at 56, ¶ 27 , 961 P.2d at 454 ; , (if “case has been submitted on correct rulings and instructions, and the verdict is within the range of credible evidence,” verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice and should be affirmed); Ogden v. J.M.
  • Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Roberts v. City of Phoenix 235 P.3d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “If the verdict is supported by adequate evidence, it will not be disturbed, and the greatest possible discretion is in the hands of the trial judge.”
  • Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    And in considering an appeal on a motion for additur, -77 , -98 (1972), that “the trial judge should not interfere with what is peculiarly the jury’s function, and if he does not, we will nearly always uphold him ...
  • Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    more soundly based than ours can be.”
  • Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
  • Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
  • Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Duncan v. State 754 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    the supreme court stated: It is interesting to note that in every single one of these cases we affirmed the trial court’s order.
  • Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
  • Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
    538, 539 , , vacated on other grounds
  • Continental Telephone Co. v. Blazzard 716 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Continental Telephone Co. v. Blazzard 716 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    ict in the evidence, the trial judge should not interfere with what is peculiarly the jury’s function, and if he does not, we will nearly always uphold him____ Behind all of these tests still stands the original doctrine—that if the verdict is supported by adequate evidence, it will not be dis *5 turbed, and the greatest possible discretion is in the hands of the trial judge.” -577 , -798 (1972).
  • Chancellor v. Taylor 711 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Chancellor v. Taylor 711 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Ehmke v. Hicks 715 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Ehmke v. Hicks 715 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc.
  • Bustamante v. City of Tucson 701 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Bustamante v. City of Tucson 701 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    : “From what we have written, it is obvious that the test for reviewing the granting or refusing of a trial judge’s adjustment of a verdict is complex and can only be solved by an ad hoc approach.
  • Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Hernandez v. State 647 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982