Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heaton v. Waters, 445 P.2d 458.

32 citing documents.

Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
We further note that, although Rule 59(m) is “designed to insure that both parties and the appellate courts receive adequate notice of the grounds on which the trial court relied,” Reeves, 119 Ariz. at 164, it does not require the trial court “to render a written opinion setting forth [its] rationale for granting a new trial motion or to undertake a lengthy review of the facts.” –60 (1968).
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
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
: We do not believe that our Supreme Court intends to require the trial judge to render a written opinion setting forth his rationale for granting a new trial motion or to undertake a lengthy review of the facts.
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
and Pinewood Development Company v. Truman, 20 Ariz.App.
Garcia v. Puchi 537 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Garcia v. Puchi 537 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Pinewood Development Company v. Truman 514 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Pinewood Development Company v. Truman 514 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Meyer v. Ricklick, 1 Ariz.App.
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Rodriguez v. Williams, supra; , ; Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee, 4 Ariz.App.
Arizona Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. v. Brookshire 477 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. v. Brookshire 477 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
American Savings Life Insurance v. Financial Affairs Management Co. 474 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
American Savings Life Insurance v. Financial Affairs Management Co. 474 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Brooks v. De La Cruz 473 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Brooks v. De La Cruz 473 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Considering that 59 (m) is “designed to serve a practical purpose and should receive a practical construction,” , more is required under the circumstances than a general statement that the interpreter was incompetent and unable to translate properly Miss Dominguez’ testimony.
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Powell v. Klein 464 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Powell v. Klein 464 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969