Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Selby v. Savard, 655 P.2d 342.

113 citing documents.

State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. 2026
Thompson v. Spina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Thompson v. Spina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Premier Consulting v. Peace Releaf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Premier Consulting v. Peace Releaf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“A trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.”
Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[T]he community is liable for the intentional torts of either spouse if the tortious act was committed with the intent to benefit the community.”) 2 ANDRICH v. BANNER UNIVERSITY, et al. Decision of the Court appointment wit
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”).
Prince v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Prince v. Prince Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In determining the admissibility and relevance of evidence, the trial court is invested with considerable discretion, which we review for an abuse of discretion
Santoro v. Santoro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Santoro v. Santoro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Miller 429 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Miller 429 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kern v. Kern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kern v. Kern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Arizona Rules of Evidence 103(a) (2018) (error in the admission of evidence is reversible only if a substantial right of the party is involved).
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 17 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2007)); (); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quam v. Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., ¶ 20 (App. 2009) ( and Brown v. U.S. Fid.
Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Silverwood v. Kush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“The only objection which may be raised on appeal .
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
hertz/coy v. Coy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 311 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
ALOSI v. Hewitt 276 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Indeed, , (in division), the supreme court held that “[t]he Arizona rule is that the community is liable for the intentional torts of either spouse if the tortious act was committed with the intent to benefit the community, regardless of whether in fact the community receives any benefit.” ¶ 25 A
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(citations omitted); ¶ 66 , (“We review a trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”).
Advanced Cardiac Specialists, Chartered v. Tri-City Cardiology Consultants, P.C. 214 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Advanced Cardiac Specialists, Chartered v. Tri-City Cardiology Consultants, P.C. 214 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
prove an abuse of that privilege either by proving publication with ‘actual malice’ or by demonstrating excessive publication.” 7 Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 616 , 688 P.2d at 624 ( , , , 1096 *388 (App.1986) (“A conditional privilege is abused and forfeited when a defendant acts with malice in fact.”), disapproved on other-grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(citations omitted); see also Brown v. U.S. Fid.
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
Ledvina v. Cerasani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by