Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

Horizon Resources Bethany Ltd. v. Cutco Industries, Inc. 881 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
DISCUSSION Summary judgment may only be granted when “reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim,” , and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Carroll v. Robinson 874 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by [the plaintiff].”
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Helms 880 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Helms 880 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Callender v. MCO PROPERTIES 885 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent.”
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sarmiento v. Stubblefield's Custom Concrete, Inc. 874 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In explaining its decision to direct a verdict, the trial court commented that the plaintiffs had failed "to establish a duty on the part of Defendant Stubblefield toward Plaintiffs” and "to establish a prima facie case" to reach a
Shuck v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 872 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Shuck v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 872 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 870 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Avila v. Northrup King Co. 880 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
whether Smith presented evidence from which reasonable people could conclude either that: (1) Edwin Nally acted within the scope of his employment with TRS when he sexually harassed Smith, so that TRS is vicariously liable for Nally’s conduct; or (2) because TRS knew or should have known of Nel
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(summary judgment appropriate if no reasonable juror could find for the party based on the evidence).
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
v. English, , , see Ariz.R.Civ.P.
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. English 864 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1993
Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. English 864 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1993
DISCUSSION Summary judgment is proper when, factually, “reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim,” , and, legally, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Ariz.R.Civ.P.
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
These motions should be granted only “if the facts produced 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.”
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 880 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 880 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The evidence is insufficient to withstand 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.”
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by [plaintiffs].”
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(defendant may obtain summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case).
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture 860 P.2d 1328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
An issue should be taken from the jury, though, 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.”