Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc., 812 P.2d 1025.

37 citing documents.

High Desert v. Cec 141202761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Any misconduct must have “actually influenced the verdict,” or the newly discovered evidence “would probably change the result of the litigation,” Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., (citation omitted).
No Worries v. Marlin Mechanical Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
No Worries v. Marlin Mechanical Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
accord Larue, 235 Ariz. at 444 ¶ 17; Clark, 138 Ariz. at 242; Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
Peterson v. Burke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Peterson v. Burke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 12-541(1); –13 (App. 1990).
Christakis v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Christakis v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co. of Ariz., Inc., Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
White v. 1st Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., Wendling v. Sw.
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
trial for newly-discovered evidence should be granted only if “(1) the newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered before the granting of the judgment despite the exercise of due diligence, (2) the evidence would probably change the result of the litigation, and (3) the newly discovered evidence was in existence at the time of the judgment.” Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., Ariz. R. Fam.
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
or new trial based on newly discovered evidence is appropriate only if “(1) the newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered before the granting of judgment despite the exercise of due diligence, (2) the evidence would probably change the result of the litigation, and (3) the newly discovered evidence was in existence at the time of judgment.” Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., (citation omitted).
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Boatman v. 5 PARKS v. ABS Decision of the Court Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION I. Motion for New Trial ¶6 We review the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion.3 Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
larue/tucker v. Brown 333 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
larue/tucker v. Brown 333 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., ( ).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc.
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc., , (quoting Bobo v. John Lattimore, Contractor, 12 Ariz.App.
McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
McKernan v. Dupont 968 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Jepson, 164 Ariz. at 274-75 , 792 P.2d at 737-38 (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing denial of Rule 60(c) relief and dismissals for lack of prosecution); Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc., , (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing denials of motions for new trial).
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc. 949 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Appellees add, , that the second amended complaint does not relate back under Rule 15(c), Ariz.R.Civ.P., because the § 1981 claim was not part of the facts giving.rise to the original complaint.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc.
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
See Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc.
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Co., , Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc.