Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Saide v. Stanton, 659 P.2d 35.

36 citing documents.

Henke v. Hospital Ariz. 2025
Henke v. Hospital Ariz. 2025
(“The use or refusal of an expert to use a ‘magic word’ or phrase such as ‘probability’ is not determinative.
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
6 ¶18 Here, liability was contested and the verdict was approximately ten percent of the amount of damages sought by the Murrays, with no plausible rationale for the amount of the award.7 (new trial limited to damages where liability contested but verdict not disproportionate to proven damages, and court unable to say verdict represented compromise or result of passion and prejudice); Tovrea Equip.
Nyemah v. Forrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyemah v. Forrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Arizona courts have consistently followed the rule that in order for a trial court to properly submit the question of future medical expenses to the jury, the need for future care must be reasonably probable and there must be some evidence of the probable nature and cost of the future treatment.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001236 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001236 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“The use or refusal of an expert to use a ‘magic word’ or phrase such as ‘probability’ is not determinative.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 204 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("The use or refusal of an expert to use a `magic word' or phrase such as `probability' is not determinative.
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-80 , -39 (1983); Styles, 185 Ariz. at 451 , 916 P.2d at 1167
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(when error relates to one issue, issues may be severed and new trial confined to contaminated issue); see also Martinez, 178 Ariz. at 350 , 873 P.2d at 688 .
Styles v. Ceranski 916 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Styles v. Ceranski 916 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
25, 28 , 515 * -80 , -39 (1983).
State v. Ellevan 880 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ellevan 880 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(Dentist’s refusal to estimate probable future dental expenses did not prevent fact-finder from assessing probable expenses based on the evidence as a whole.); State Compensation Fund v. Industrial Comm’n, 24 Ariz.App.
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martinez v. Schneider Enterprises, Inc. 873 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
as an example of how little detailed evidence is necessary to support a lump sum award for future medical expense and as an example of how a lump sum award allows for flexibility in meeting unpredictable needs.
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Ours is a notice pleading jurisdiction, , and does not require the use of “magic words” such as “economic loss.”
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
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
DeStories v. City of Phoenix 744 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
DeStories v. City of Phoenix 744 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Plaintiffs’ , and Southwestern Freight Lines, , is also misplaced.
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd. 725 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See, , Besch v. Triplett, 23 Ariz.App.
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
Bruce Church, , Anderson v. Muniz, 21 Ariz.App.
Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc. 688 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1984
Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc. 688 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1984
Hiser, 126 Ariz. at 612 , 617 P.2d at 778 ; , 79 n. 1, , 38 n. 1 (1983).