Cited by

v. Reeves, ); ¶ 19 (App. 2019) (using federal court's interpretation of "substantively indistinguishable" procedural rules).

v. Reeves, Ariz. R. Civ.

(noting that “dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts” is not a basis for denial of summary judgment).

v. Reeves, (recognizing the “essence of the summary judgment rule”).

(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (explaining the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient” to withstand a motion of summary judgment, and that “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for plaintiff.”)).

“should be granted if the facts produced in support of 16 HENKE, ET AL. v. HOSPITAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” (emphasis added).

v. Reeves, -10 & 309 (1990); see Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves, see Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves, see also Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves, (a party moving for summary judgment needs only to show that no evidence exists to support an essential element of the claim).

v. Reeves, (court should grant summary judgment “if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense”).