Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Hon. bernstein/herman, 349 P.3d 200.

100 citing documents.

Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mendoza v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶15 We review the court’s decision to exclude an expert’s testimony for abuse of discretion, ¶ 9 (2015), even when presented in the summary judgment context, Baker v. Univ.
In Re: Ms2009-000010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re: Ms2009-000010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Therefore, her testimony “should be tested by the adversary process — competing expert testimony and active cross-examination — rather than excluded from [the fact-finder’s] scrutiny for fear that [it] will not grasp its complexities or satisfactorily weigh its inadequacies.” ¶ 18 (2015) (quoting State v. Langill, 945 A.2d 1, 11 (N.H. 2008)); see also State ex rel.
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 18 (2015) (jury's role is to assess weight and credibility of evidence).
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶17 "The rule 'recognizes that trial courts should serve as gatekeepers in assuring that proposed expert testimony is reliable and thus helpful to the jury's determination of facts at issue.'" ¶ 11 (2015) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
Rasor v. Nw. Hosp. LLC 419 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Rasor v. Nw. Hosp. LLC 419 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Bernstein , , ¶ 14, quoting State v. Langill , 157 N.H. 77 , 945 A.2d 1 , 10 (2008) (first alteration added, second alteration in Bernstein ).
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
Such challenges are instead a proper subject of the trial court’s gatekeeping inquiry.” ¶ 13 (2015).
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
cmt.; ¶ 14 (2015) (“The overall purpose of Rule 702 .
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
State of Arizona v. Anthony Benard Primous 394 P.3d 646 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Anthony Benard Primous 394 P.3d 646 Ariz. 2017
“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 9
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
is simply to ensure that a fact-finder is presented with reliable and relevant evidence, not flawless evidence.” ¶14, (quoting State v. Langill, 157 N.H. 77, 87, 945 A.2d 1, 10 (2008)).
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion.” , 228 ¶ 9
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 9, and “a suppression order based on an incorrect legal standard may be reversed,”
State v. Hon. padilla/colvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. padilla/colvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 12 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 9 (2015)).
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State v. Saunders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Saunders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mortensen v. Mortensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 14, (“The overall purpose of Rule 702 .
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See Romero, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 27, 365 P.3d at 364 (“‘Cross- examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’”), see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (2015) (“[I]t is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the weight and credibility of evidence.”) (-57 (1974)).
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 365 P.3d 358 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 365 P.3d 358 Ariz. 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
226, 228 ¶ 9, (citing cases).
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015