Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Catchings v. City of Glendale, 743 P.2d 400.
- Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc.
394 P.3d 32
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“The test is whether prejudice seems affirmatively probable[,] and prejudice will not be presumed, but must appear probable from the record.” -23 , -03 (App. 1987), quoting Hallmark v. Allied Prods.
- Ritchie v. Costello 356 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Ritchie v. Costello
356 P.3d 337
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
An operator of an airport “owes a duty to the public to maintain reasonably safe conditions for aircraft using the airport, and that duty extends to runways.” (citations omitted); see also Mills v. Orcas Power & Light Co., -86 (Wash.
- Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Garcia v. Saavedra
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶20 “Jury instructions are viewed as a whole, with an eye toward determining whether the jury has been given the proper rules to apply in arriving at its decision.”
- A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6
93 P.3d 1095
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Thompson , 187 Ariz. at 126 , 927 P.2d at 786 ( , ); , (citing Durnin, 161 Ariz. at 419 , 778 P.2d at 1315 ).
- S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co.
31 P.3d 123
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“A jury verdict will not be overturned because of the jury instructions that were given unless there is substantial doubt as to whether or not the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.”
- Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Barnes v. Outlaw 937 P.2d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
-
Barnes v. Outlaw
937 P.2d 323
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
On appeal, “ij]ury instructions are viewed as a whole, with an eye toward determining whether or not the jury has been given the proper rules to apply in arriving at its decision.”
- Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 927 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
Amerco v. Shoen
907 P.2d 536
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(“The trial court is not required to rewrite a proffered instruction so that it accurately reflects the law.”).
- Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
Dunn v. Maras
897 P.2d 714
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
According to another, the trial court should examine whether prejudice is “affirmatively probable.” , -23 , -03 (App.1987); see also Brooks v. Zahn, 170 Ariz. at 549 , 826 P.2d at 1175 .
- Richtmyre v. State 858 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Richtmyre v. State 858 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin 851 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin 851 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- 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
- Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak 790 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak 790 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989