DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

68 citing documents.

  • State v. Ross 396 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Ross 396 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1964
    * * * ” Also, , , this court held: “The trial judge, so far as this duty is concerned, sits as a thirteenth juror, and he, as well as the jury, must he convinced that the weight of the evidence sustains the verdict, or it is his imperative duty to set it aside * * , ; , 296 P. 247 .
  • State v. Turner 375 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Turner 375 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1962
    has the approval of this Court: “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 .
  • Caldwell v. Tremper 367 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1962
  • Caldwell v. Tremper 367 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1962
  • State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McMinn 355 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1960
  • State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McMinn 355 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
    Blakely Oil, , ; , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Saenz 353 P.2d 1026 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Saenz 353 P.2d 1026 Ariz. 1960
    al Petroleum Corp. v. Barker, supra, 77 Ariz. at page 244, 269 P.2d at page 735) and ‘unless a clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the verdict is just, the trial judge may in the exercise of his discretion grant a new trial’ (Bradley v. Philhower, supra, 81 Ariz. at page 63, 299 P.2d at page 649.)” , , 472: “ ‘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
  • Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
  • Pima County v. Bilby 351 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1960
    The scope of our review of an order granting a new trial, , , where this Court stated: “We do not agree with the defendants that the trial court abuses its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial where the evidence is equiponderant or nearly so or where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, at least when used in the sense as used b
  • Singleton v. Valianos 323 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1958
  • Singleton v. Valianos 323 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1958
  • Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd. 320 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1958
  • Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd. 320 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1958
    Upon appeal, the order granting a new trial will be upset where it is affirmatively shown the order is unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion under the state of the record and the circumstances of the case.” , , we held that “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.” The trial judge, in ruling on the new