Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya, 372 P.2d 703.

92 citing documents.

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
it has had the opportunity to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of witnesses,” -34 , -53 (App. 1983), a remittitur is only proper “for the most cogent reasons,” Young Candy & , (citation omitted), such as a “lack of evidence to support the damages awarded or a clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages,” Hanscome, 227 Ariz. at 162, ¶ 14 , 254 P.3d at 401 .
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., ¶ 21, Young Candy & Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 53
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When considering a motion for new trial, the trial court must ask “whether the jury verdict is so ‘manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.’” ¶ 23, (quoting Young Candy & ).
Davis v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Davis v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A court has discretion to act when the verdict is “so ‘manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.’” Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 55, ¶ 23, 961 P.2d at 453, citing Young Candy &
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“The basic question he or she must ask is whether the jury verdict is so ‘manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.’” Id., quoting Young Candy &
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
Nonetheless, remittitur is proper only “for the most cogent reasons,” Young Candy & , 5 such as lack of evidence to support the damages awarded or a clear indication that the jury misapplied the principles governing damages.
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Remittitur is proper only “for the most cogent reasons,” Young Candy & , including a lack of evidence supporting the damages award.
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Acheson, 107 Ariz. at 579 , 490 P.2d at 835 (quoting Young Candy & , ); see also Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
The basic question he or she must ask is whether the jury verdict is so “manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.” Young Candy &amp
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The appropriate test of passion or prejudice is whether the verdict is “ ‘so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the Court.’ ” , (quoting Young Candy & , ).
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(2) the plaintiff is part of the class of persons that the statute was designed to protect, , (3) the violation of the statute is either unexcused or inexcusable, Brannigan, 136 Ariz. at 517 , 667 P.2d at 217 ; and (4) the violation is the proximate cause of the injury, Young Candy &amp
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The test is whether the verdict is “so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the Court.” , (citing Young Candy & , ); see also Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
The appropriate test of passion or prejudice is whether the verdict is “so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the court.” Acheson v. Shafter, 107 Ariz. at 579 , 490 P.2d at 835 (citing Young Candy & , ); accord Linsenmeyer v. Hancock, 23 Ariz.App.
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Continental Townhouses East Unit One Ass'n v. Brockbank 733 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Continental Townhouses East Unit One Ass'n v. Brockbank 733 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
The amount of a jury verdict should be reduced only for “the most cogent reasons.” Young Candy &amp
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, , Young Candy & , Brooks v. De La Cruz, 12 Ariz.App.
Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp. 606 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
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
In short, the damages must be flagrantly outrageous and extravagant, or the court cannot undertake to draw the line, for they have no standard by which to ascertain the excess.” ’ ” Young Candy &amp
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Young Candy & , , , ; Brooks v. De La Cruz, 12 Ariz.App.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
We have, in the past, held that punitive damages will be upheld unless the verdict is ‘so manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience of the Court.’ Young Candy & at 370 , at 707 (1962).” 107 Ariz. at 579 , 490 P.2d at 835 .
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Young Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Montoya, 91 Ariz, 363