Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Moroney, 282 P.2d 470.

68 citing documents.

Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We will affirm an order for a new trial “unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the [order] is wrong and unjust.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We will reverse an order granting a new trial if “the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong.”
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
When ruling on a motion for new trial, a trial court must “pass on the weight of the evidence” to determine if “substantial justice has not been done between the parties.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Our supreme court has explained that it is the duty of the trial court to “pass on the weight of the evidence and if, after a full consideration of the case, in its discretion it believes that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that substantial justice has not been done between the parties, it is its duty to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.” , (quoting Young Mines Co., 37 Ariz. at 525 , 296 P. at 249 ).
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(If the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence, it is the court’s duty to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.).
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(it is not necessary for a party to object to instructions submitting the opposing party’s theory of the case in order to later assert insufficiency of the evidence on a motion for new trial).
Brown v. General Foods Corp. 573 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Brown v. General Foods Corp. 573 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
at 585 , 540 P.2d at 711 (1975)
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 470 (1955) where the Supreme Court stated: “We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” 79 Ariz. at 39 , 282 P.2d at 472 .
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Joy v. Raley 540 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Joy v. Raley 540 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. McIver 505 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. McIver 505 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
we adopted with approval the test laid down in the civil case, , that: “We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless1 the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” As was stated by the court in People v. Ramos, 33 A
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Reed v. Hyde 487 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Reed v. Hyde 487 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In that case we stated: “ , is one of the more fully articulated decisions of our Supreme Court in the area of new trial orders.
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
See, , ; , .” , is one of the more fully articulated decisions of our Supreme Court in the area of new trial orders.
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
Blakely Oil, , ; Bradley [Produce] v. Philhower, , ; , 282 * , .” 88 Ariz. at page 247, 354 P.2d at page 864 .
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
our Supreme Court analyzed the language of the statute we have set forth, supra, as follows: “These words, ‘giving or furnishing’, imply affirmative action as distinguished from the word ‘permit’ which carries the connotation of -passive acquiescence.
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
An appellate court will not disturb an order granting a new trial “ * * * unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.”
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
See, , ; , .” 88 Ariz. at 262 , 355 P.2d at 901-902 .