Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., 684 P.2d 888.

30 citing documents.

Puckett v. Manghram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Puckett v. Manghram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶28 A statement made during closing argument is proper when viewed “in the context of the manner in which the case was tried.” Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., (sending a message to the motorcycle industry was proper when punitive damages were not at issue because a theory defendant had was defective design).
Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
see also Morales v. Coffey, No. 1 CA-SA 23-0040, ¶¶ 15-20, 2023 WL 5122710 (Ariz. App. Aug.
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(rejecting contention that telling the jury to "send a message" was an improper request for punitive damages).
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
8 STAFFORD v. BURNS et al. Opinion of the Court ¶22 Not every violation of the court’s admonitions requires dismissal of the juror involved, and the trial court is in the best position to determine the effect, if any, of a juror’s misconduct, ().
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 18 “[T]he [superior] court is in the best position ‘to determine what effect, if any, alleged juror misconduct might have had upon other jurors.’ ” Brooks, 170 Ariz. at 553 , 826 P.2d at 1179 (quoting Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., , ).
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.2d 639 (App. 1989); P.2d 888 (App. 1984).
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
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
§§ 12-2501 to 12-2509, has on the application of this court’s
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
In arguing that a defendant cannot shift responsibility for fault it had a duty to guard against, Plaintiffs rely on what they refer to as “an analogous context of crashworthiness cases,”
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Brooks v. Zahn 826 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Division of AMF, Inc.
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
this court held as follows: If there has been misconduct on the part of a juror, the grant or denial of a motion for mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court____ Prejudice will not be assumed, but must appear probable from the record____ The trial court co
Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gonzales v. Arizona Public Service Co. 775 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Division of AMF, Inc., , this court rejected the argument that because a motorcyclist was generally aware of the danger posed by the *90 rupture of a motorcycle gas tank, the motorcyclist assumed the risk of rupture of a gas tank of flawed design.
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 755 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 755 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
Cota v. Harley Davidson, A Division of AMF, Inc., -14 , -95 (App.1984).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by