Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Englehart v. Jeep Corp., 594 P.2d 510.

48 citing documents.

Arnold v. Viewpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Arnold v. Viewpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(stating that “the fact that a witness has qualified as an expert on previous occasions does not make him any more qualified to testify in the case at bar”).
Tarascio v. Siebers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Tarascio v. Siebers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Englehart v. Jeep Corp. ("[T]he fact that a witness has qualified as an expert on previous occasions does not make him any more qualified to testify in the case at bar.").
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“[T]he fact that a witness has qualified as an expert on previous occasions does not make him any more qualified to testify in the case at bar.”
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Further, “the trial court determines in each case ‘whether the expertise of the witness is applicable to the subject about which he offers to testify.’ ” Gemstar, 185 Ariz. at 505 , 917 P.2d at 234 ( , ).
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
the court described the heeding presumption as a presumption of due care “founded on a law of nature and has for its motives the fear of pain, maiming and death.” ( , 199 P. 116, 120 (1921)); , (recognizing presumption of due care in products liability case, although presumption rebutted).
State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, -56 , -65 (1983) (presumption of sanity); , (presumption of due care); Glodo v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, , (considering the “presumption that a claimant does not intend to injure himself or herself’) (citation omitted); , (A
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
See, , , (“Trial courts have broad discretion in admitting expert testimony____”); 1 Morris K. Udall, J.M.
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
“Whether a witness is competent to testify as an expert is a matter primarily for the trial court and largely within its discretion.” , ( , ).
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rourk v. State 821 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Pincock, 146 Ariz. at 95 , 703 P.2d at 1244 .
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
A witness must indicate that his training and experience qualify him to render enlightened opinions and draw sophisticated conclusions from the particular type of evidence available____”
Logan v. Brown 725 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Logan v. Brown 725 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Madison Granite Co. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 676 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Madison Granite Co. v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 676 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The inquiry must be “whether the expertise of the witness is applicable to the subject about which he offers to testify.” , (emphasis added).
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
rule 104(a), Rules of Evidence.
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
at 548-49 , 84 P.2d at 454r-55; , , Flores v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co.
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
State v. Passarelli 636 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Passarelli 636 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America 631 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Co. Inc. v. Esslinger Lefler, Inc.
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981