Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Valley National Bank v. Brown, 517 P.2d 1256.

54 citing documents.

Pino-Alvarez v. Erlichman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Pino-Alvarez v. Erlichman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 A tort plaintiff is only entitled to recover “those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant’s 3 PINO-ALVAREZ v. ERLICHMAN Decision of the Court wrongful acts.” ¶ 28 (2000) (quoting Valley Nat’l ).
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
3 “[A] damages award is within the jury’s province and ‘will not be disturbed on appeal except where the verdict is so exorbitant as to show passion, prejudice, mistake, or complete disregard of the evidence.’” ¶ 28 , (quoting Valley Nat’l , ).
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
¶40 Further, although the jury’s verdict fell outside the range of possible values discussed by the experts at trial, the verdict was within the range discussed by Pierce and is not “so exorbitant as to show passion, prejudice, mistake or a complete disregard of the evidence.” ¶ 14 , (quoting Valley Nat’l , ).
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Valley Nat’l Bank v. Brown , , (“Recovery in a tort action is limited to those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful acts.”); see also Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago , 148 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The requirement of proving loss causation is a general requi
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Furthermore, Arizona allows damages for mental distress resulting from “a physical invasion of a person or the person’s security.”
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 28 Larsen is entitled to recover in tort “those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful acts.”
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
See Valley Nat’l , (noting that jury damage awards not disturbed unless the result of passion, prejudice, or a disregard of the evidence).
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 917 (1979) (hereinafter Restatement); , see also Potter v. Village Bank of New Jersey, 225 N.J.Super.
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Patterson v. Bianco 805 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Quinn v. Turner 745 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Quinn v. Turner 745 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the plaintiffs sought damages against a bank for mental anguish suffered as the result of a wrongful garnishment.
DeStories v. City of Phoenix 744 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
DeStories v. City of Phoenix 744 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Valley Nat’l , our supreme court stated: With but a few minor exceptions, the rule is that where no malice or intent is shown, no damages may be awarded for mental anguish or distress of mind.
All Points Towing, Inc. v. City of Glendale 735 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
All Points Towing, Inc. v. City of Glendale 735 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
[must] reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered the contract.”
Short v. Riley 724 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Short v. Riley 724 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
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
Deno v. Transamerica Title Ins.
ELAR INVESTMENTS v. Southwest Culvert Co. 676 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
ELAR INVESTMENTS v. Southwest Culvert Co. 676 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Southern Arizona School for Boys
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Tyron v. Naegle, 20 Ariz.App.
Deno v. Transamerica Title Insurance 617 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Deno v. Transamerica Title Insurance 617 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In another case, , our Supreme Court stated: mental anguish or distress of mind.
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
All American School Supply Co. v. Slavens 609 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
Southern Arizona School For Boys
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc.
Altfillisch Construction Co. v. Torgerson Construction Corp. 586 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Altfillisch Construction Co. v. Torgerson Construction Corp. 586 P.2d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Keck v. Jackson 593 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Keck v. Jackson 593 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
10 Ariz.Law Review 509 (1968); Fear for Another: Psychological Theory And The Right To Recover, 1969 Ariz.St.Law Journal 420
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976