Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Piner, , ; see also In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Alberta Securities Commission v. Ryckman 30 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Alberta Securities Commission v. Ryckman 30 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
We will affirm if the trial court’s ruling is correct on any ground, Glaze v. *582 Marcus, , and if the facts produced in support of Rowland’s claims “have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion [he] advanced.”
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(party with burden at trial must produce evidence creating question of fact); compare , (alleged slayer’s indictment for first-degree murder did not establish felonious and intentional killing when slayer pled gui
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 20 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 20 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. 18 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. 18 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
802 P.2d *347 1000, 1009 (1990).
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
( , ); -90 , -33 (2000).
Estate of Nelson v. Rice 12 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Estate of Nelson v. Rice 12 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Such motions should be granted only “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.”
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by