DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 412 P.2d 272.

56 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
    Co., –64 (1966) (finding the trial court’s order that “the judgment was not justified by the evidence” failed to satisfy the Rule 59(m) particularity requirement); Pima County v. Bilby, 87 3 We intend the following analysis to govern the particularity requirement of current Rule 59(i).
  • 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
  • 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
    Improper statements made by plaintiffs counsel in his opening statement and closing argument Liberatore compares this facet of the trial court’s order to an order reviewed in Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , where the trial court identified “misconduct of counsel” as a ground for new trial.
  • Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    See, , Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
  • Johnson v. Maricopa County 730 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Johnson v. Maricopa County 730 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
  • Bond v. Cartwright Little League, Inc. 536 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1975
    The reasons stated comply with the requirement of Rule 59(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
  • State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Cress 528 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • 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
  • 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 & , ; Caldwell
  • 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
    While the court’s second ground as to the “greater weight of the evidence” may suffer from a Rule 59 (m) defect, See Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , ; Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 5 Ariz.App.
  • Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
  • Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
    Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , State ex rel.
  • 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
    Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., at 166 , ” At page 243, 7 Ariz.App., 437 P.2d at 995.
  • 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.
  • City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • City of Mesa v. Bradshaw 462 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    In Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company, , our Supreme Court stated, in reversing the grant of a motion for new trial: “Though we are hesitant to overturn the-ruling of a trial court in ordering a new.
  • 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.
  • Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    We believe that the trial court exceeded the bounds of judicial discretion in granting a new trial, Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 100 Ariz. *470 154, and therefore reverse with instructions to reinstate the judgment entered on February 19, 1968.
  • Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    Both cases cited Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company
  • Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Dykeman v. Ashton 446 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    While in certain cases a cross assignment of error is allowed without taking a cross appeal, Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company, , a finding in plaintiff’s favor on this issue would not support, defend, or uphold any order of the trial court from which appeal has been taken by defendant.
  • 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
    In Yoo Thun Lim , the Supreme Court noted that the word “particularity,” as used in Rule 59(m), meant “‘in a detail,”’ , , and in Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , the court noted the failure of the order there under consideration to “ * * * specify in any detail wherein there was a lack of evidence from which the jury could infer negligence.” In view of that language in those decisions, we cannot place an unqualified imprimatur upon the statemen
  • 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
    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 Telephone & Telegraph Co., 164
  • Oana v. Haskell 441 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Oana v. Haskell 441 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
  • 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
    Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., at 166 , 3 Since we have sustained the trial court’s reason for granting a new trial, the plaintiffs’ arguments in support of the order appealed from are rendered superfluous.
  • Boudreaux v. Edwards 437 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Boudreaux v. Edwards 437 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    *181 In Atchison, T. & , it was stated: “ * * * Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” More recently in Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s granting of a new trial holding that although the trial judge had wide discretion in granting a new trial, wher
  • Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Riley v. Jones 430 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    If there was any lingering doubt after the rehearing decision in Wolfswinkel , it was made clear by subsequent decisions of our Supreme Court, , , , and Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , 2 Terzis, supra, authored by Windes, J., the same justice who wrote the Wolfswinkel opinions, says: “The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff in walking across the intersection against the red light was guilty of negligence as a matter of law.
  • 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
    As stated in the recent case of Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., , : “In examining the trial court’s order that ‘the judgment was not justified by the evidence’ it is immediately apparent that the court did not specify in any detail wherein there was a lack of evidence from which the jury could infer negligence.