Cited by

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

88 citing documents.

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
overruled as to the consequences of failure to comply with the specificity requirements of Rule 59 (m)
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
Hibner v. Gleason 408 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1970
Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Towers v. Johnson 465 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Powell v. Klein 464 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Powell v. Klein 464 P.2d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
Rules of Civil Procedure, provides specificity requirements for an order granting a new trial: “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.” , we discussed the purpose of Rule 59(m), stating that the requirement of specificity is designed to clearly delineate the issues on appeal by keeping the parties and the appellate court informed of the particular ground (s) of the trial court’
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
Reliance is placed on four recent Arizona cases: , Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , , and Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co, 8 Ariz.App.
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Estabrook v. JC PENNEY COMPANY 456 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 456 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1969
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 456 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1969
Schneider v. City of Phoenix 452 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schneider v. City of Phoenix 452 P.2d 521 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
wherein it was stated: “* * * The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as interpreted in this jurisdiction, does not raise a presumption but merely permits an inference of negligence by the jury.
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and similar authorities recently cited and applied by this court in Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 5 Ariz.App.
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
We recently commented on this general type of order in Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin [ , ], supra, stating that in this situation ‘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 new trial.’ We are not convinced that the verdict of the jury was incorrect.” Rogers v. Mountain States T
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Aegerter v. Duncan 437 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company 427 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company 427 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
We recently commented on a general type of order in granting -a , stating that in this situation “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 new trial.” We are not convinced that the verdict of the jury was incorrect even though the
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