Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sanchez v. Stremel, 391 P.2d 557.

46 citing documents.

Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reyes v. Gilbert 447 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(citing Grant, 133 Ariz. at 454 ()).
Varco, Inc. v. UNS Electric, Inc. 393 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Varco, Inc. v. UNS Electric, Inc. 393 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(single instance of improper argument in closing plus prejudicial misconduct throughout trial justified new trial); see also Grant, 133 Ariz. at 452-53 , 652 P.2d at 525-26 (reviewing cases and finding misconduct “almost invariably ...
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Our supreme court has long held that a trial court “can best determine whether [its] admonition is effective,” given any “improper attempts by counsel to mislead and arouse the prejudices of the jury,” and given that the “atmosphere or climate of the trial is peculiarly within the knowledge and experience of the trial court.”
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
at 454 , 652 P.2d at 527
Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Dykeman v. Engelbrecht 803 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
She contends that counsel, by his remarks, intimated to the jury that the trial court was “vouching” for defendant
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
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
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Reversal will be required only when there has been error or misconduct and it appears probable that the misconduct “actually influenced the verdict.”
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
Taylor v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 637 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1981
Reed v. Hyde, 15 Ariz.App.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
is would not be allowed to go to you as a jury.” While wide latitude is allowed in argument by counsel, this Court has held that suggesting in argument that the trial court would have thrown the case out if it were weak, , or that a court’s refusal to direct a verdict indicates its view that the evidence justifies a recovery, , is improper.
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
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Mesa v. Bradshaw, 11 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
10 A.L.R.3d 1324 (1964); Meyer v. Ricklick, 1 Ariz.App.
Elledge v. Brand 429 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1967
Elledge v. Brand 429 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 420 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Cortez 418 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1966
State v. Cortez 418 P.2d 370 Ariz. 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
Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin 411 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1966
Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin 411 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1966
Aguilar v. Carpenter 399 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Pacific Guano Company v. Pinal County Land Company 399 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Pacific Guano Company v. Pinal County Land Company 399 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
ational Bank (1926) , 243 P. 598 ; Young Mines Co., Ltd. v. Citizens’ State Bank (1931) , 296 P. 247 ; Brownell v. Freedman (1932) , ; Sadler v. Arizona Flour Mills Co. (1942) , ; Caldwell v. Tremper (1961) , ; Zevon *36 v. Tennebaum (1952) , ; Sanchez v. Stremel (1964) , .
Aguilar v. Carpenter 399 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
New Trial § 201a; , ; , .
State v. Mejia 399 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mejia 399 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1965