Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barsema v. Susong, 751 P.2d 969.

31 citing documents.

William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Grant 217 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(evidence that medical malpractice defense expert was health care insurer’s vice president and member of its board of directors was admissible to show possible bias); Vegodsky v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 12 The supreme court discussed the circumstances under which a statute supplants a
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
v. Vizcaino, (declining to hear constitutional challenges to residency requirement not raised below, although appellant urged consideration of issue under Dombey); n.1, n.1 (1988) (appellate court’s discretion to hear constitutional arguments not argued below should be “sparingly invoked”).
Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Downs v. Scheffler 80 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(holding that the failure to allow cross-examination is reversible error when it results in prejudice); , (stating that an appellate court will only overturn a trial court’s decision to limit the scope of cross-examination i
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(statute purporting to bar evidence of insurance coverage is unconstitutional violation of separation of powers doctrine).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Burris v. City of Phoenix 875 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Ariz. Const. art. III and art. VI, § 5; , -45 , -61 (1986).
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See, , (impermissible to accord special treatment to cer: tain medical malpractice defendants); , (law authorizing reimbursement of officials void as a special law because intended for a particular case with no application in future); Graham County v.
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