Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 10 P.3d 1181.

79 citing documents.

Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
SRP and its amicus cite two cases in support of this argument: , 295-96 ¶¶ 31-36, -54 (2004) (remanding for new Rule 403 determination because basis of original ruling was legally *501 insufficient), , 403 ¶ 26, (noting that Rule 403 balancing "is peculiarly a function of trial courts" and refusing to "assume that the court would have excluded .
Belliard v. Becker 166 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Belliard v. Becker 166 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., ¶ 10 , (citations omitted).
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co., (“[T]he 10 balancing of factors under Rule 403[, Ariz. R. Evid., 17A A.R.S.,] is peculiarly a function of trial courts, not appellate courts.”).
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co., (we may affirm judgment if it is correct for any reason).
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Co., - 5 - 399-400, ¶ 12, -87 (App. 2000).
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., ¶ 19 , (admissibility of evidence determined by considering facts of consequence in the context of the substantive law), and that standard has been misapplied here, we vacate the prior evidentiary ruling as to GM.
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Henry v. Healthpartners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Rosarita Mexican Foods v. Industrial Commission 19 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., ¶ 10 , (questions of alleged legal error reviewed de novo ).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by