Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. DiRico, 606 P.2d 3.

28 citing documents.

State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
While the State invited the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Hill — an improper argument — it did not improperly “appeal to the fears or passions of the jury.” ¶ 58 (2007); (holding “golden rule” arguments are improper).
State v. Button Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Button Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
3 STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court convict for reasons irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt); (describing “golden rule” argument).
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
2006) (reasoning that a statute similar to § 12-2604 should not be read to require irrelevant specialties and board certifications); -19, -9 (1980) (recognizing that common law does not require expertise irrelevant to standard of care and holding trial court did not err in permitting an internist to testify against a surgeon with respect to “standard of care in the overall treatment of the pati
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rather, a witness may testify based upon his or her “education, experience, observation or association with that specialty.”
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(trial court has great discretion in controlling conduct of trial); , (“The trial court has full discretion in the conduct of the trial, and that discretion will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discre
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 3 (1980) (trial court has great discretion in controlling conduct of trial); State v. Just, 138 Ariz. 534, 550, (“The trial court has full discretion in the conduct of the trial, and that discretion will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of dis
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Wiggs v. City of Phoenix 4 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Perguson v. Tamis 937 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
a medical malpractice action, plaintiff’s counsel committed similar improprieties in closing argument: If this man had been treated as you would like to be treated yourself—you think about it.
McGuire v. DeFrancesco 811 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
McGuire v. DeFrancesco 811 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980