DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Larriva v. Widmer, 415 P.2d 424.

36 citing documents.

  • Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Generally, the amount of damages to award falls “peculiarly within the province of the jury.” –77 (1972).
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Connell v. Connell, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶11 Generally, “the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury.”
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶55 "It is 'well settled in Arizona that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.'" ¶ 12 (App. 2011) (); (holding that unless a verdict is the result of passion or prejudice, we must affirm if the "case has been submitted on correct rulings and instructions, and the verdict is within the range of credible evidence").
  • Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    However, once the fact of damage is shown, “the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury.” (emphasis added).
  • Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Ahmad v. State 379 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    DISCUSSION ¶ 9 “The law is well settled in Arizona that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.”
  • Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    The amount of a damages award is “‘a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.’”
  • Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Remittitur of Chandler’s Award ¶ 12 It is “well settled in Arizona that the amount of an award for damages is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.” 4
  • 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
    A jury may be acting out of passion and prejudice when it awards an “amount so unreasonable that it ‘shocks the conscience’ of the court.” Id.
  • Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Lay v. City of Mesa 815 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Instructions must be considered as a whole, and a case will not be reversed when an error appears in an isolated part of the instructions, “unless it appears that the questioned instruction, when considered in connection with all the instructions in the case, was calculated to mislead the jury as to the law.” , ( , ).
  • 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
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
  • Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    This is a question of first impression in Arizona, having been *553
  • American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Creamer v. Troiano, supra; , Wry v. Dial, 18 Ariz.App.
  • Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
  • Creamer v. Troiano 503 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Godsoe 489 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971