Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Orme School v. Reeves, 802 P.2d 1000.

1307 citing documents.

Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 297 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 297 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC 296 P.3d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC 296 P.3d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Caruthers v. Underhill 287 P.3d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Summary judgment *521 should be granted “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.”
Gardner v. Richardson 283 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gardner v. Richardson 283 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Reeves, , Ariz. R. Civ.
Grande v. Jennings 278 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Grande v. Jennings 278 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Reeves, , Ariz. R. Civ.
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Pain Management Clinic, P.C. v. Preese 275 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Summary judgment should be granted “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.”
Thomas v. MONTELUCIA VILLAS, LLC 275 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thomas v. MONTELUCIA VILLAS, LLC 275 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Best v. Miranda 274 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. 269 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. 269 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz 266 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2011
Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz 266 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 93 A directed verdict is appropriate 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.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , ( , ).
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. Reeves, -10 , -09 (1990).
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. Reeves, -10 , -09 (1990).
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wb, the Building Company, LLC. v. El Destino 257 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(holding that “a scintilla of evidence or a slight doubt” is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and render summary judgment inappropriate).
Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC 258 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC 258 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011