Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona, 995 P.2d 735.

54 citing documents.

Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 16 (App. 1999) (“Prompt objection allows the trial court to ‘impose restraints upon counsel once it appears that argument is proceeding past legitimate boundaries.’” (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub.
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A grant of judgment as a matter of law is proper “only when the facts presented in support of a claim have so little probative value that reasonable people could not find for the claimant.” ¶ 6 (App. 1999).
Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Roe v. Austin 433 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Monaco v. HealthPartners of S. Ariz. , , ¶ 6
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 7 (App. 1999) (–16 (1979)).
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 6 (App. 1999); Glazer, 237 Ariz. at 167, ¶ 29.
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ariz., ¶ 6 (App. 1999) (motion for judgment as a matter of law).
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ghosoph v. Kottmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., -05 n.2, ¶¶ 16, 18 (App. 1999)).
Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Warne Invs., 219 Ariz. at 194, ¶ 33, 195 P.3d at 653; Tobias, 196 Ariz. at 420, ¶ 7, 998 P.2d at 1093; ¶ 6
Schaub v. Nfra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schaub v. Nfra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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
-94 , -68 (App.1997) (concluding that an issue first raised in a motion for new trial was waived); ¶ 16 , (“Prompt objection allows the trial court to 'impose restraints upon counsel once it appears that argument is proceeding past legitimate boundaries.’ ” (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub.
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
304-05 n. 2, ¶¶ 16, 18, , 740-41 n. 2 (App.1999); Grant v. Ariz. Pub.
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for JMOL,” and “[w]e view the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
12 review that ruling de novo.8 See Crackel, 92 P.3d at 890
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Monaco v. Health?artners of S. Ariz.
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
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
6 *18 ¶ 16 “We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for [judgment as a matter of law].” ¶ 6