Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co., 652 P.2d 507.

300 citing documents.

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
Co., , (“[W]hen a judge commits an ‘error of law ...
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co., (“[W]hen a judge commits an ‘error of law .
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“[A] defendant’s financial statements are irrelevant in the ordinary ease, but are admissible to show wealth or financial status of the wrongdoer where an issue regarding punitive damages is submitted to the jury.”).
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Co., , , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Montano v. Browning 48 P.3d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Co., , (abuse of discretion when “there has been an error of law committed in the process of reaching the discretionary conclusion”).
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
But, , a trial court may be regarded as having abused its discretion when “there has been an error of law committed in the process of reaching the discretionary conclusion.” We thus review de novo whether the trial court here correctly ruled that the Guidelines’ definition of “gross income” i
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., -56 , -29 (1982) *874 (recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision).
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Serv., , see also Torres v. North Am.
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. 2 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(argument without evidentiary support and raised for first time in reply brief untimely); State v. Arizona Property & Cas.
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Maxwell v. Aetna Life Ins.
Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Speer v. Donfeld 969 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
¶7 More recently, , the court determined that plaintiffs counsel had committed misconduct in closing argument by arguing his personal beliefs, facts that were not in evidence, and inferences that were not legitimately supported by an exhibit, but deferred to the trial court’s decision that the misconduct did not re
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
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
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Co., , defendant’s expressed basis for her objection— that the subject of the question posed was “irrelevant” — was insufficient to preserve the separate issue of whether the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence.
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Sabalos 874 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
(abuse of discretion exists where error of law is committed in the process of exercising discretion).
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
However, an abuse of discretion includes “an error of law committed in the process of reaching the discretionary conclusion.” , (Feldman, J., supplemental opinion).
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Montoya v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Montoya v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
An abuse of discretion exists “[wjhere there has been an error of law committed in the process of reaching the discretionary conclusion,” , or where the trial judge clearly erred in finding the facts or applying them to the legal criteria for granting injunctive relief.
Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991