Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc., supra
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Hernandez v. State 623 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Hernandez v. State 623 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
As to the Waquis’ appeal, , although reaching opposite conclusions.
Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co. 570 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Having come to that conclusion, Freys urge that we must reverse because of the Supreme Court’s
Seely v. McEvers 564 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Seely v. McEvers 564 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
We therefore cannot say that substantial justice has not been done in light of the overall setting of the trial and character of the evidence, , and find no basis for granting an additur or a new trial.
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
overruled on other grounds, , , Joy v. Raley, 24 Ariz.App.
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Moten 558 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Moten 558 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the Supreme Court in reversing an order granting an additur stated: “Almost always when there is a conflict 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.
Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 541 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 541 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
* * *” -77 , -98 (1972).
Arizona Container Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways 522 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Arizona Container Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways 522 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “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.
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
overruling Zadro v. Snyder, 11 Ariz.App.