Cited by

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

92 citing documents.

Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall 496 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
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).
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hancock v. Linsenmeyer 488 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See Young Candy & , and the cases cited therein.
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Company, , J. H. Welch & , ; , , ; Young Candy & , ; , , ; , ; , , ; Valley Transportat
Brooks v. De La Cruz 473 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Brooks v. De La Cruz 473 P.2d 793 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, , and again in Young Candy & , our Supreme Court approved the following principles, which were set forth in a jury instruction in Pearson & Dickerson, supra, at , -384: “You are instructed that an owner of an automobile or truck has the right to use the highways of the state, provided in using th
Muccilli v. Huff's Boys' Store, Inc. 473 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Muccilli v. Huff's Boys' Store, Inc. 473 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Generally, a remittitur should not be ordered except for “cogent reasons” *591 See Young Candy &amp
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Howard P. Foley Company v. Harris 456 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Myers v. Rollette 429 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Whitly v. Moore 427 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Allen v. Devereaux 426 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Allen v. Devereaux 426 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Young Candy & , ; , ; Tanner v. Pacioni, 3 Ariz.App.
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Fulton v. Johannsen 416 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Our Supreme Court has cited with approval in Young Candy & , the following test of excessiveness: “ * * * The damages, therefore, must be so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure, unreasonable, and outrageous, and such as manifestly show the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
Larriva v. Widmer 415 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1966
Young Candy & , , , .
Moore v. Gray 414 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Moore v. Gray 414 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tanner v. Pacioni 413 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Tanner v. Pacioni 413 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
McClain v. Sinclair 410 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
McClain v. Sinclair 410 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
* * * ” , and Young Candy & , which quote the foregoing statement with approval.
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1966
See Young Candy & , and the cases cited therein.
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
Young Candy & , ; , .
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
Dubreuil v. Gardner 409 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1965
[Citing cases]" , and in Young Candy &amp
Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley 407 P.2d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Young Candy & , Garcia v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
Stearman v. Miranda 396 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1964
Stearman v. Miranda 396 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1964