Cited by

To establish a gross negligence claim, the plaintiff “essentially must show wanton misconduct that is flagrant and evinces a lawless and destructive spirit.” ¶ 27 (App. 1999) (citation modified).

A party opposing summary judgment cannot, however, rely on unproven assertions of fact, and “speculation is insufficient .

Recklessness involves the “conscious disregard of the law or the rights of others.” Spooner, 246 Ariz. at 119 ¶ 10; ¶ 27 (App. 1999) (stating the standard is “wanton misconduct that is flagrant and evinces a 13 LEATHAM et al. v. YEARICK et al. Decision of the Court lawless and destructive spirit[]”) (cleaned up); Miranda v. City of Casa Grand

¶ 29 (App. 1999) (“Sheer speculation is insufficient .

to defeat summary judgment.”) ( ¶ 29 (App. 1999)).

¶ 29 (App. 1999) ("Sheer speculation is insufficient to .

¶ 29 (App. 1999) (citation omitted); Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr.

Knapp, 122 Ariz. at 329; ¶ 29 (App. 1999) ("Sheer speculation is insufficient .

to defeat summary judgment.” ¶ 29 (App. 1999).

However, “[s]heer speculation is insufficient to establish the necessary element of proximate cause or to defeat summary judgment.” ¶ 29 (App. 1999).

¶ 29 (App. 1999) (“Sheer speculation is insufficient to establish the necessary element of proximate cause or to defeat summary judgment.”); Ward, 178 Ariz. at 355 (“[T]he fact that an accident occurred is not enough to permit an inference of negligence.”).

354 ¶ 17, (“The issue of whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court, unaffected by expert opinion.”); see also Monroe, 234 Ariz. at 157 ¶ 4, 318 P.3d at 873 (existence of duty “is a matter of law for the court to decide”) (citing Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 9, 150 P.3d at 23

And the purpose of § 1983 is “to deter unconstitutional acts committed under color of state law and to compensate the victims of such acts.” Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 195 Ariz. 349, ¶ 20, see Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984).

¶ 19 “[E]xpert opinion evidence based on sheer speculation is not competent.” , ¶29 , Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.

to defeat summary judgment.” see also Menendez, 172 Ariz. at 269, 836 P.2d at 979 (“Speculation that some slight doubt, scintilla of evidence, or dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts 6 Rule 56(f), Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 29 , (“Sheer speculation is insufficient to establish the necessary element of proximate cause or to defeat summary judgment.”).

¶ 11 , (citation omitted).

to defeat summary judgment.”

¶ 29 (citations omitted).

tion to hear state-law tax claims and § 1983 tax claims is subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies”); -83 , -60 (App.1989) (overturning dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in § 1983 suit against state health care director because no exhaustion was required under § 1983); 8 ¶ 25 , (discussing supremacy of federal law permitting recovery of punitive damages against state actors under § 1983 over statutory immunity from punitive damages).