Cited by

see § 12-409(B)(5); CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, (recusal did not “taint [prior] rulings with the appearance of impropriety”); Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2003) (subsequent recusal did not raise substantial question about impartiality).

“We will not disturb a [superior] court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.” ¶ 24 (App. 2004) (quoting Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2003)).

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (quoting United States v. Tham, 960 F.2d 1391, 1397 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991)).

We “will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.” ¶ 10 (App. 2003).

¶ 9 (App. 2010); Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2003).

See Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2003).

“We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2003).

See generally Jimenez v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 8-9 (App. 2003).

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2003).

“We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2003).

See Bryan, 178 Ariz. at 477; Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2003).3 ¶7 "The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation," ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (quotation omitted), and is intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial, ("[T]rial by ambush is

As this court has explained, “issues not raised and argued in a first appeal may not be raised later in a second appeal.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2003) ().

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5

Further, this Court has held that “a party need only disclose the ‘substance’ of the witness’s expected testimony, not the details.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5, (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, see Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., but, as discussed later, we review de novo pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, see Robson Ranch Mountains

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5

Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 5

¶8 The “law of the case” doctrine refers to “„the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.‟” quoting Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

¶ 8 The “law of the case” doctrine refers to “ ‘the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.’ ” , quoting Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

That doctrine is “‘the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.’” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., quoting Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II

See Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

cf. Jiminez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (on retrial, parties may “‘make new motions, raise new objections, and present additional evidence’”), quoting United States v. Thom, 960 F.2d 1391, 1397 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991).

See Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., P.3d 673 (App. 2003) (ruling on alleged disclosure violations reviewed for abuse of discretion).

“We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶ 10

at 279 , 860 P.2d at 1332 ; see also Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ¶¶ 12-14 , ¶¶ 12-14 (App.2003); Radish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, -28 , -41 (App.1993).