Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 411 P.2d 809.

88 citing documents.

Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
3 we reasoned that particularity means “in a detail,” and instructed that mere recitation of the statutory grounds for a new trial in Rule 59(a) “manifestly” failed to satisfy Rule 59(m)’s particularity requirement.
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
486, 490, –14 (1942); –39, State v. 5 STATE V. FISCHER Opinion of the Court ¶14 The duty to grant a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence has been labeled the “thirteenth
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sanders v. Foley 945 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Bar Committee Note to 1966 amendment to Ariz. R. Civ.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
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
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
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Nordensson v. Nordensson 707 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
omestic relations case, , , 427 (App. 1983), in which the trial record clearly stated that the motion for new trial was granted “in application of the test set forth in Simpson v. Superior Court, supra [ , ].” When the trial court does not specify with particularity, as here, , may apply, i.e., the burden of proof shifts to appellee, on appeal, to prove that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial.
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In Reeves , , that when a trial court fails to satisfy the *354 specificity requirement of Rule 59(m), the appellee has the burden on appeal to convince the appellate court that the trial court did not err in ordering a new trial.
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
In Estabrook , however, , holding that where the trial court does not specify with particularity the grounds for ordering a new trial, the reviewing court “will presume that the verdict of the jury was correct, placing the burden on the appellee to convince [the reviewing court] that the trial court did not err in orderi
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw 560 P.2d 420 Ariz. 1977
overruled on other grounds, , , Joy v. Raley, 24 Ariz.App.
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App.
Starkovich v. Noye 519 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Starkovich v. Noye 519 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Aguilar v. Carpenter, supra.
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Burton 514 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Phoenix Title and Trust Company v. Arizona Public Service, 8 Ariz.App.
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
King v. O'Rielly Motor Company 494 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Estabrook v. J. C. Penney Co., supra
In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Schneider v. City of Phoenix, 9 Ariz.App.
Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
606 , and Fiske v. Wilkie, 67 Cal.App.2d 440 , , ; , ; Sawyer v. People’s Freight Lines
Arizona Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. v. Brookshire 477 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. v. Brookshire 477 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Defendants first contend that the court’s order fails to comply with Rule 59 (m), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
where we held that where the trial court does not specif}' with particularity the grounds for its decision to grant a new trial “ * * * we will presume that the verdict of the jury was correct, placing the burden upon the appellee to convince us that the trial court did not err in ordering a
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
No order granting a new trial shall be made and entered unless the order specifies with particularity the ground or grounds on which the new trial is granted.” The term “with particularity” in Rule 59 (m) means “in a detail.” , quoting Webster’s Third International Dictionary.
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
ew trial ■under Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., the trial court cited as its ■specific ground: “Assuming that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given in this case, the Court is of the opinion that it erred in giving defendant’s instruction No. 11 in the form presented.” This ground is sufficiently particularized to comply with Rule 59, supra, , Santanello v. Cooper, 12 Ariz.App.