Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 658 P.2d 835.

79 citing documents.

Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Van Lines, Inc., , ¶ 14 , (reasoning it would “affirm the trial court’s decision if it did not ‘exceed[ ] the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.’ ” ( , 961
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Van Lines, Inc., , 658 P.2d *66 835, 840 (App.1982) (discretion abused if “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons”).
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
“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
Harris v. Purcell 973 P.2d 1166 Ariz. 1998
Harris v. Purcell 973 P.2d 1166 Ariz. 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In general, an abuse of discretion “is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Schwartz v. SUPERIOR CT. IN MARICOPA CTY. 925 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schwartz v. SUPERIOR CT. IN MARICOPA CTY. 925 P.2d 1068 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“An ‘abuse of discretion’ is discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Abuse occurs when the discretion is “exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Abuse of discretion has been defined as “discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc., , , Assuming the prosecutor’s argument was a calculated reference to evidence which was excluded, it was improper, but we do not believe it constitutes fundamental error.
Matter of Pima Cty. Mental Health Serv. 757 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Matter of Pima Cty. Mental Health Serv. 757 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.