Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
¶ 12 As set forth in Orme School v. Reeves, however, a directed verdict is appropriate “only when, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses, there is [no] difference of opinion over the factual issues in controversy.” -09 , -08 (1990) (quoting Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 407 , 63 S.Ct.
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 8 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 8 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co. 7 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co. 7 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
v. Reeves, 309 , 1008 (1990) (court may grant summary judgment only if, when viewing evidence in light most favorable to non-mov-ant, reasonable jury could not find for party).
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Baker v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, Inc. 5 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tumbling-T Ranches v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 5 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
v. Reeves, -10 , -09 (1990).
Baker v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, Inc. 5 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced.”
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
¶ 22 , the court of appeals held that State Farm was entitled to directed verdict because “reasonable minds could only conclude that the value of the Zilisch claim was fairly debatable.” Zilisch, 194 Ariz. at 38 , 977 P.2d at 138 .
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Compensation Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. 3 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
MacLean v. State Dept. of Educ. 986 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
MacLean v. State Dept. of Educ. 986 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
We will affirm if the trial court’s ruling is correct on any ground and if the facts produced in support of MacLean’s claims “have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by [her].”
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Boomer v. Frank 993 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Reeves, -10 , -09 (1990).
Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Reeves, , (existence of genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment).
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM WAS FAIRLY DEBATABLE ¶ 20 A party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law “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.”
Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc. 979 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Aranki v. RKP Investments, Inc. 979 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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.”
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
DISCUSSION ¶ 11 Summary judgment is proper “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.”
Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of America 985 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of America 985 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Reeves, , Saenz v. State Fund Workers’ Compensation Ins.
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
ANALYSIS Failure to Postpone Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 7 Even if, for purposes of argument, , contemplates a reasonable opportunity to complete disclosure before a motion for summary judgment should be resolved, that assumption does not support their ultimate position.
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
Nolde v. Frankie 964 P.2d 477 Ariz. 1998
v. Reeves, , (stating that summary judgment is appropriate if facts submitted in support of a 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”).
Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc. 980 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc. 980 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by