Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., 748 P.2d 1191.

38 citing documents.

Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kunasek v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., or “outrageous [actions], creating a ‘substantial risk of tremendous harm to others,’” Swift Transp., CV-20-0119- PR, at *5, ¶ 22 (); see also Rawlings, 151 Ariz. at 162 (“consciously pursu[ing] a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of significant harm to others”).
Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
Swift Transportation Co of Az v. Hon. Carman Ariz. 2022
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thus, when an experiment or demonstration is not “an attempted replication of the litigated event,” but is “more in the nature of a demonstration, it is appropriately admitted if it fairly illustrates a disputed trait or characteristic.” Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., rev’d in part on other grounds, see also 1 McCormick on Evid.
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
at 331, 723 P.2d at 680 ( ); (recognizing that 21 DESERT PALM et al. v. PETTA Opinion of the Court recklessness or even gross negligence is insufficient to support punitive damages).
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“However, when the experiment is not a purported replication but is more in the nature of a demonstration, it is appropriately admitted if it fairly illustrates a disputed trait or characteristic.” reversed in part on other grounds by 155 Ariz. 567
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See also, Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., , (citing to Gurule) , (citing to Farr).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See also, Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., , (citing to Gurule); , (citing to Farr).
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez 887 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez 887 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Specifically, they argue that clear and convincing evidence was not presented to establish the “evil mind” required for punitive damages
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., , aff'd on this ground, , (citations omitted).
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
a case involving similar facts to the case at hand.
Hooper v. Truly Nolen of America, Inc. 832 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hooper v. Truly Nolen of America, Inc. 832 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Similarly, , holds that an evil mind may be shown by “either (1) evil actions; (2) spiteful motives; or (3) outrageous, oppressive or intolerable conduct ...” While TNA acknowledges its gross negligence and a failure to adequately supervise, it contends that the evidence does not establish such a
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Linthicum v. Na *153 tionwide Life Ins.
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
These standards have since been applied to other types of cases, including products liability, , , and personal injury actions.
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See also Volz v. The Coleman Company, Inc., , Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1988
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1313 Ariz. 1988
Gurule v. Illinois Mutual Life & Casualty Co., , , , , cert.