Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zugsmith v. Mullins, 344 P.2d 739.

34 citing documents.

Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., ( (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cal X-Tra, 229 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 88 (appellate courts will “‘scrutinize with care an order granting a new trial because ‘meaningful review in such cases is required to maintain the integrity of the jury trial system and the practical value of court adjudication.’”), –38 (1959).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In our review, we “scrutinize with care an order granting a new trial” because “meaningful review in such cases is required to maintain the integrity of the jury trial system and the practical value of court adjudication.” -38 , (citations omitted).
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
Grant, 133 Ariz. at 454 , 652 P.2d at 527
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Grant v. Arizona Public Service
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
’ of the aggrieved party.”
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
’ of the aggrieved party.” , (citation omitted).
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Taylor v. DiRico 606 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Sanchez v. Stremel, supra
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
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
On the other hand, our Supreme Court has stated that: “It has been appreciated that meaningful review [of new trial orders] * * * is required to maintain the integrity of the jury trial system and the practical value of court adjudication.”
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
Sanchez v. Stremel 391 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1964
Sanchez v. Stremel 391 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1964
Waid v. Bergschneider 381 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1963
Waid v. Bergschneider 381 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1963
Colfer v. Ballantyne 363 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1961
Colfer v. Ballantyne 363 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1961