Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 719 P.2d 1058.

103 citing documents.

Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hernandez v. State 52 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2002
Hernandez v. State 52 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2002
(“Rule 105 is mandatory, not discretionary; 'once evidence admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another is admitted, the trial court cannot refuse a requested limiting instruction.’"(quoting Chemetron Corp. v. Business Funds, Inc., 682 F.2d 1149, 1185 (5th Cir. 1982)); Jose
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
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
his relevance objection, the court sustained the objection and ruled that “[t]he sending-the-message argument is stricken.” ¶ 15 Appellants argue that the evidence of their subsequent remedial measures was “admissible to avoid any inadvertent award of punitive damages,”
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
He contends, however, that appellee had a continuing duty to inform past customers of the availability of the new safety device once it learned of it, citing Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, Inc., , 2
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Zuern v. Ford Motor Co. 937 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(harmonizing statutory rule with evidentiary rule of procedure); -46 , -62 (1986) (interpreting statutory provision as supplementing rather than conflicting with procedural rule); , (adopting supplementary statutory provision that did not unreasonably limit or hamper judicial system)
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Monthofer Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Allen 943 P.2d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
(Rule 105 “comes into effect after the trial court has exercised its discretion and ruled in favor of admissibility”).
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
403; -50 , -66 (1986) (applying an abuse of discretion standard and holding that an appellate court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and utilize Rule 403 to exclude evidence after the trial judge has presumably weighed the factors and decided in favor of admissibility”).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The hearsay rules represent a peculiarly judicial function — defining what evidence is reliable and establishing judicial processes to test that reliability: Unlike the rules affected by the statutes at issue in Seidel or Readenour [v. Marion Power Shovel, , ], the hearsay rules are at the core of the judicial function: defining what is reliable evidence and establishing judicial processes to test reliability.
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Ariz. Const. art. III and art. VI, § 5; , -45 , -61 (1986).
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. 842 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The court stated: Although we have previously recognized consistent statutory additions to the rules of evidence, Seidel, supra, Readenour [v. Marion Power Shovel ], supra, [ , ] the reach of our rulemaking authority and the function of the hearsay rules, taken together, severely limit the legislature’s authority to manipulate the hearsay rules, particularly in criminal cases where confrontation rights are constitutionally protected.
State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
(once evidence is admitted for a limited purpose “it is error for the court to fail to give the requested limiting instructions”).
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
See Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, Inc.
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
See, -48 , -64 (1986) (Rule 407 does not require the exclusion of evidence of remedial measures when offered for another purpose).
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
First, this court promulgated the rules of evidence pursuant to our exclusive constitutional authority “to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5); , State ex rel.
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barsema v. Susong, 2 CA-CIV 5794 (Ariz.Ct.App.
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987