Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Porterie v. Peters, 532 P.2d 514.

32 citing documents.

Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(“We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to strike a juror for an abuse of discretion.”); (“We cannot say from the record that the action taken by the trial court in failing to grant a mistrial was an abuse of discretion.”).
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tondu v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[I]t is not necessary for the trial judge to instruct on every refinement suggested by counsel.
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
And if misconduct occurs during opening statements, the court may sustain an objection, “admonish the jury to disregard improper remarks by counsel,” Higgins, 90 Ariz. at 69 , 365 P.2d at 486 , or, if appropriate, order a mistrial
Pettay v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 752 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Pettay v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 752 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
It may not be error to refuse an instruction which fails to state the law completely, , but “[t]his protection against reversal should not be used as a reason for giving no instruction at all,” where the purpose of a limited use request is apparent in the context of the trial and the subject to which this request relates is important.
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hallmark v. Allied Products, supra; Sequois Mfg., supra.
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center Inc. 695 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1985
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center Inc. 695 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1985
Lang v. City of Des Moines, 294 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 1980); Elkader Cooperative Co. v. Matt, 204 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1973).
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. 666 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Bleak 656 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1982
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Bleak 656 P.2d 600 Ariz. 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
3 , the Arizona Supreme Court said that instructions should not be given in the form of mere abstract legal rules unless they are specifically made applicable to the issues in the case.
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Once the court defines in understandable language the legal principles applicable to a controversy, it is the obligation of counsel, in argument, to discuss the evidence and the applicability of the legal principles to the ultimate facts found by the jury.”