Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance, 733 P.2d 1073.

198 citing documents.

Sabatina v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sabatina v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., and may be awarded only when such an award would serve to punish a "defendant [that] acted with an 'evil mind.'" Gurule v. Illinois Mut.
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Title Agency, ¶ 81 (App. 2008)); ("[A] damage award, punitive or otherwise, must be based on more than mere speculation or conjecture.").
Sobieski v. American Standard Insurance Co. 382 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sobieski v. American Standard Insurance Co. 382 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., -02, ¶ 19 (App. 2000) ().
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Co., (pleadings and substantive law determine facts of consequence for relevance purposes).
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., (noting that the general rule is “an appellate court will not consider issues not raised in the trial court.”).
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesio 254 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , (“[R]elevance requires only a modicum of rationally probative force.”); cf. Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, , (citing Wagner v. Coronet Hotel, 10 Ariz.App.
In Re Mh 2008-002659 226 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh 2008-002659 226 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , and protects the party against whom the new argument is asserted from surprise.
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (holding issues not raised until petition for review are not considered).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (holding issues not raised until petition for review are not considered).
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
Co., , (holding whether party concealed evidence was pertinent to jury’s assessment of the reprehensibility of party’s conduct for purposes of punitive damages award); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , (noting attorney’
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , for the proposition that punitive damages must be awarded by the fact finder, here the jury.
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , (in calculating "a punitive damage award that is reasonable under the circumstances," the trier-of-fact may consider the "duration of the misconduct, the degree of defendant’s awareness of the harm or risk of harm, and any concealment”).
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co., n.3, n.3 (1987) (“We urge trial judges to articulate their reasoning so appellate courts can determine on appeal whether the ruling was erroneous.”).
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Freelance Interpreting Services, Inc. v. State 133 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Freelance Interpreting Services, Inc. v. State 133 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Co., , (holding that it is within the discretion of the appellate court whether to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
Co., , Barrio, , 692 P.2d at 283 .
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Co., , (“Efficient and orderly administration requires some point in time at which it is too late to raise new issues on appeal.”); but see Liristis v. Am.