DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reah v. Jupin, 206 P.2d 558.

36 citing documents.

  • Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Prevailing on an assault or battery claim does not necessarily lead to punitive damages; the plaintiff also must show the defendant acted “wantonly, maliciously, or under circumstances of aggravation.” 1 Hart contends the standard of review is “unclear,” arguing this court applied a de novo standard of review in Felipe v. Theme Tech.
  • Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    -79 (1952) (malicious or aggravated conduct in beating plaintiff may constitute malice for purposes of punitive damages; $15,000 awards for compensatory and punitive damages upheld); -37 , -60 (1949) (no error to submit punitive damages to jury when defendant pushed, kicked, and grabbed plaintiff; malice may be inferred from nature of the acts and surrounding circumstances); Barker v. James, 15 Ariz.App.
  • Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Flieger v. Reeb 583 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Magma Copper Co. v. Shuster 575 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Magma Copper Co. v. Shuster 575 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Further, , correctly sets forth that in an action for assault and battery malice is an appropriate basis for punitive damages and that malice may be inferred or implied from the nature of the acts complained of and the surrounding circumstances.
  • Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Harrison 484 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    our Supreme Court asserted : “There is no question under our law but that malice is a basis for punitive damages in an action for assault and battery.
  • Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    It is, of course, the court’s responsibility to instruct the jury on all phases of the law supported by the evidence
  • Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
  • Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
    The general rule is well settled that “While it is not good practice to repeat the same subject matter in several instructions after having once covered such points, the universal rule is that repetitious instuctions do not constitute reversible error unless it reasonably appears that the jury were [sic] misled.” , .
  • Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
  • Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
    for a discussion of the general principles applicable to this subject.
  • Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    “A mere plan, suggestion or arrangement, even if it be original, is not the subject of property rights.” Our Supreme Court has held that a case should not be reversed for repetitious instructions “ * * * unless it reasonably appears that the jury were misled.”
  • Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
  • Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
    stated: "While it is not good practice to repeat the same subject matter in several instructions after having once covered such points, the universal rule is that repetitious instructions do not constitute reversible err
  • Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
  • Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
  • Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
  • Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
    we said: “It is not reversible error for the court to give more than one instruction in different words covering the same question.
  • Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
  • Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
  • Stallcup v. Coscarart 282 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
  • Stallcup v. Coscarart 282 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
    199 P. 124 ; , ; Riser v. Herr, 187 Okl.
  • Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
  • Tipton v. Burson 238 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1951
    A , , wherein this general statement appears: “ * * * However, it is the court’s responsibility to instruct the jury on all phases of the law applicable to various fact situations developed during the course of the trial, and the court in the instant case apparently believed there was sufficient eviden