Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Begay v. City of Tucson, 715 P.2d 758.

27 citing documents.

Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Torres v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12-612; ¶ 11 (2002)
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Co., (holding that the trial court “did not exceed its judicial discretion in finding that the damages ordered by the jury were excessive” and ordering remittitur in a wrongful death action); (suggesting no difference between personal injury and wrongful death cases concerning the trial court’s consideration of a motion for new trial based on insufficient damages).
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
-08, -61 (1986) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial for decedent’s child, who was awarded no damages for wrongful death, although decedent’s parents obtained damage award).
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
for the proposition that the proportion of damages which each statutory beneficiary is entitled to recover is not based on an equal division among the statutory beneficiaries.
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Our courts have consistently construed this to mean that there is “one action for damages with one plaintiff and one judgment.” ¶ 11, (same); (stating “there is ‘one action’ for damages occasioned by a wrongful death,” and th
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm 129 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
505, 508, ¶ 11 , (same); Nunez v. Nunez, 25 Ariz.App.
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
is one action for damages with one plaintiff and one judgment.” see also Nunez v. Nunez, 25 Ariz.App.
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Greenwald v. Ford Motor Co. 993 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 41 , 938 P.2d at 90 ; , (wrongful death is one action, involving one plaintiff, resulting in one judgment).
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Duke v. Cochise County 938 P.2d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Appellants also point out that a wrongful death action on behalf of multiple beneficiaries constitutes one claim for damages with one plaintiff and one judgment
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Williams v. Superior Court 820 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
§ 12-612 involves only “one plaintiff and one judgment,” , Nunez, 25 Ariz.App.
Knipp v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Knipp v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 750 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff 737 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior Court 722 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1986