DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, 52 P.3d 184.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Reagor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Reagor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 2 (2002) (“In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and if any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict, we will affirm the judgment.”).
  • Ramer v. Cates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Ramer v. Cates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Nolan v. Hsb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nolan v. Hsb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Guirguis v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Guirguis v. Patel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Lembke v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Lembke v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We view “the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the [jury’s] verdict,” and we will affirm the verdict “if any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict.” ¶ 2 (2002).
  • Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Franklin v. Clemett 382 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 16 (2002) (“In considering whether sufficient proof exists to support a jury verdict, an appellate court looks to the broad scope of the trial and does not re-weigh the evidence on review.”).
  • Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
  • Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
  • Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    We do not independently review the jury’s finding, but instead will affirm the judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict, “any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict.” ¶ 2, ( ¶ 13, ).
  • County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    But “if any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict, we will affirm the judgment.” ¶ 2
  • Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
  • Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
    2003) (assessing in malicious prosecution case the “facts and circumstances” supporting “legal sufficiency of the affidavit of probable cause”); ¶ 19, (noting in context of malicious prosecution case that “the 5 evidence was legally sufficient for a jury determination of no probable cause”); -46, (noting in criminal case that whether “
  • Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc. 173 P.3d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    “In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and if any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict, we will affirm the judgment.” ¶ 2
  • White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    “[I]f any *136 substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the [jury’s] verdict, we will affirm the judgment.”
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    In more recent decisions, however, the court has reviewed a trial court’s “decision to deny post-trial motions [for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), now called JMOL] for an abuse of discretion.” (“A trial court’s denial of a motion for JNOV will be reversed only if it reflects a manifest abuse of discretion.”).
  • Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    2 reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict, we will affirm the judgment.”