Cited by

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

300 citing documents.

Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rodriguez v. Schlittenhart 780 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rodriguez v. Schlittenhart 780 P.2d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Rodriguez maintains that this evidence was admissible to prove the existence of a dangerous condition, knowledge or notice of that condition, or negligence in allowing it to continue
Copeland v. City of Yuma 772 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Copeland v. City of Yuma 772 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
objections during argument, , : Objection is not only appropriate but desirable under [Rule 51(d) ] when opposing counsel begins “departing from the record, drawing illegitimate inferences, arguing facts not in the record or stating counsel’s personal conclusions.”
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
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
rocedure provides, “Interruption of counsel in argument will not be permitted, except for the purpose of raising a question of law.” Objection is not only appropriate but desirable under that rule when opposing counsel begins “departing from the record, drawing illegitimate inferences, arguing facts not in the record or stating counsel’s personal conclusions.”
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Shea 742 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Shea 742 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
M. Udall & J. Livermore, supra § 12, at 18; , (objection that evidence is irrelevant, without specifying how or why, does not raise any issue on appeal where the evidence would have been relevant under any possible circumstance); 1 Weinstein’s Evidence 11103[02], at 103-23 to -24 (if a general objection is overruled, party objectin
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
Serv., , the court of appeals found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a mistrial because Evans's misconduct had not influenced the verdict.
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
Del E. Webb v. Superior Court of Arizona 726 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1986
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
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
where the trial court’s ruling on a nonlegal, discretionary determination was upheld.
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
“The grant or denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of misconduct is a matter within the trial court’s discretion; in exercising that discretion, the trial court must decide whether the misconduct has materially affected the rights of the aggrieved party.”
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Chapman v. Levi-Strauss 701 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Chapman v. Levi-Strauss 701 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
Pool v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1984
Pool v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gregory , , Cf., Klinefelter v. Superior Court , , Evans v. Abbey , , Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
Petefish by and Through Clancy v. Dawe 672 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1983
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Birds International Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co. 662 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe 657 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1983
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
United Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court 653 P.2d 691 Ariz. 1982
supplemental opinion at 453, 652 P.2d at 526, 1982).