Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reeves v. Markle, 579 P.2d 1382.

81 citing documents.

Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
Rule 59(m) is satisfied when “both parties and the appellate courts receive adequate notice of the grounds on which the trial court relied.” , ( , ).
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
1387 (1978); State v. Burton, 20 Ariz.App.
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Webb v. Webb 728 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
As was the ease in Grant , the initial determination was made by the trial court, the person who “sees the witnesses, hears the testimony, and has a special perspective of the relationship between the evidence and the verdict which cannot be recreated by a reviewing court from the printed record.”
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
King v. Superior Court 673 P.2d 787 Ariz. 1983
King v. Superior Court 673 P.2d 787 Ariz. 1983
That the verdict, decision, findings of fact, or judgment is not justified by the evidence or is contrary to law.” Though a trial court does have broad discretionary powers when considering a motion for new trial, , those powers are not unlimited.
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
He performs an indispensable function without which our system of justice could not hold out the promise of [a] uniform application of the law.” Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 130 Ariz. at 521 , 637 P.2d at 731 ( , ).
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
The most recent pronouncement of such a , which vacated the opinion of Division Two of the Court of Appeals
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
He performs an indispensible function without which our system of justice could not hold out the promise of [a] uniform application of the law.”
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
“If expert witnesses could not rely on information gained through their study of scientific literature because of its hearsay nature, then it would be virtually impossible for any expert to evaluate the facts presented in any lawsuit, because nearly everything a person has learned technically constitutes hearsay.”