Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Morrison v. McMinn, 355 P.2d 900.

38 citing documents.

State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
If our review of the record reveals “the evidence fully sustains the conviction, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial.”
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
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 4 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 4 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Morrison v. McMinn , , it asserts that a proper method of valuation must be used.
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 762 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(1960); Cano v. *326 Neill, 12 Ariz.App.
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Young Mines Co. v. Citizens’ State Bank, , 296 P. 247 (1931).
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
-902 (1960): “While it is true that the granting of a new trial is to a great extent discretionary with the trial court, such discretion, although broad, is legal and not arbitrary and must be exercised according to reason and law.
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
we examined the limits of the trial court’s discretion in granting a new trial, and stated: “While it is true that the granting of a new trial is to a great extent discretionary with the trial court, such discretion, although broad, is legal and not arbitrary and must be exercised according to r
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
261, ] we stated: 'While it is true that the granting of a new trial is to a great extent- discretion-' ary with the trial court, such discretion, although broad, is legal and not arbitrary and must be exercised according to reason and law.
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State ex rel. Herman v. Southern Arizona Land Co. 424 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State ex rel. Herman v. Southern Arizona Land Co. 424 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
or, as expressed in other words, unless the order granting a new trial is “ * * * unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion,” , , (1962).
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
Cordova v. City of Tucson 407 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Cordova v. City of Tucson 407 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
(Citing cases)” , -902 , (1960).
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Hammontree v. Kenworthy 404 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. McMinn (1960), , .
Hawkins v. Thornton 375 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1962
Hawkins v. Thornton 375 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1962