Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Meyer v. Ricklick, 409 P.2d 280.

62 citing documents.

Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dillon v. Pitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 9 (App. 2018); -58 (1965) (noting that the damage amount in personal injury action is particularly within the jury’s province, and the “law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their assessment to a jury’s good sense and unbiased judgment.”).
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
4 – 58 (1965) (noting that in a personal injury action, the “law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their assessment to a jury's good sense and unbiased judgment”).
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., ¶ 21, Young Candy & Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 53
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We will not disturb a jury’s verdict “unless it can be said that the verdict is so far inadequate or so excessive as to be without support in the evidence, or it must appear that the verdict was the result of some extrinsic consideration, such as bias, passion, or prejudice on the part of the jury.” , , 281 (1966).
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-58 , -82 (1965) (damage amount in personal injury action is peculiarly within jury’s province, and the “law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their assessment to a jury’s good sense and unbiased judgment”) — , (1990
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ultimately, “[t]he amount of damages for personal injury is a question particularly within the province of the jury.” , -82 (1965).
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
WALKER BY PIZANO v. Mart 790 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1990
WALKER BY PIZANO v. Mart 790 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1990
-58 , -82 (1965) (damage amount in personal injury action is peculiarly within jury’s province, and the “law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their assessment to a jury’s good sense and unbiased judgment”); see *42 also University of Arizona, 136 Ariz. at 586 , 667
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fernandez v. United Acceptance Corp. 610 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Fernandez v. United Acceptance Corp. 610 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Pontecorvo 603 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bruce Church, Inc. v. Pontecorvo 603 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In particular, the elements of future loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses are not capable of precise ascertainment and thus “[i]n an action for personal injuries, the law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their ascertainment to a jury’s good sense and unbiased judgment.”
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Welch v. McClure 598 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Burgy v. Hubbard 581 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Burgy v. Hubbard 581 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal 574 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
where there is a conflict of evidence, what may appear to be an inadequate verdict may really be adequate since the jury may disbelieve some and believe other evidence.
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
Romero v. Stines 503 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Romero v. Stines 503 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
“The size of the verdict alone is not sufficient evidence of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.” Jackson, supra
Jackson v. Mearig 495 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Jackson v. Mearig 495 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Villegas v. Bryson 494 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
494 , , vacated on other grounds at , Rule 59(a) (8), Ariz. Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
Braun v. Moreno 466 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970