Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
A motion for 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.”
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Russell v. Royal MacCabees Life Insurance 974 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Russell v. Royal MacCabees Life Insurance 974 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Oaks v. McQuiller 955 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Oaks v. McQuiller 955 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶ 7 A trial judge should grant a motion for 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.”
Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See Orme School v. *113 Reeves
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
v. *222 Reeves, , Ariz. R. Civ.
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Summary judgment is inappropriate unless there are no genuine factual issues and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Rule 56(c), or unless the facts supporting a plaintiffs claim “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.”
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 957 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 957 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the court concluded that such an exceptional circumstance existed when the question presented is a; pure issue of law, requiring neither factual review nor interpretation.
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Toy v. Katz 961 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
v. Reeves, , (citations omitted).
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
Barnes v. Sandoz Crop Protection Corp. 938 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Barnes v. Sandoz Crop Protection Corp. 938 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(trial court must grant summary judgment “where the proponent presents no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find, directly or by inference, that the possibilities favored the proponent”).
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Summary judgment is appropriate where “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.”
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 941 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 941 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions 1.
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc. 955 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
A motion for summary judgment should be granted where there is no “evidence creating a genuine issue of fact on the element in question.”
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997