Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stallcup v. Rathbun, 258 P.2d 821.

68 citing documents.

Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Hanscome, 227 Ariz. at 162 ¶ 13 ( 67 (1953)).
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We begin with the question “whether the verdict rendered, as compared with legal damages shown is so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court.”
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
We will not disturb a jury’s damage award unless it is “‘so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court.’” Hutcherson, 961 P.2d at 455
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Once again, the analysis must begin with a simple question: Is the award “so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court?”
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carter-Glogau Laboratories, Inc. v. Construction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Local 383 736 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
“[A]n exaggerated measurement of damages in a field in which the ideas of reasonable men may differ does not of itself lead to the conclusion that the verdict was based upon motives improper for the jury to entertain.”
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Suciu v. AMFAC Distributing Corp. 675 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Suciu v. AMFAC Distributing Corp. 675 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
one of the cases on which Stevens relies.
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
the opinion that the damages awarded were the result of passion and prejudice; that the plaintiff to some extent provoked the incident and that the Court may have committed error in the giving of a repetitious instruction If the record discloses that the jury verdict was the result of passion and prejudice, as the trial court determined, a new trial should have been granted, , and a remittitur should not have been allowed.
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Wry v. Dial 503 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Wry v. Dial 503 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
appellants urge that the size of the verdicts alone in this case show that the jury was actuated by passion and prejudice.
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Newman v. Piazza, supra.” 10 Ariz. App. at 82-83 , 456 P.2d at 402-403 .
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
and McClain v. Sinclair, 2 Ariz.App.
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
*83 Newman v. Piazza, supra.
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Camacho v. Gardner 435 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Allen v. Devereaux 426 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Allen v. Devereaux 426 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Young Candy & , ; , ; Tanner v. Pacioni, 3 Ariz.App.
McClain v. Sinclair 410 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
McClain v. Sinclair 410 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
* * * ” , and Young Candy & , which quote the foregoing statement with approval.
Waid v. Bergschneider 381 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1963

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by