Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

John Deere Insurance v. West American Insurance Group 854 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
John Deere Insurance v. West American Insurance Group 854 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Co. v. Kroger Co. 854 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Indian Village Shopping Center Investment Co. v. Kroger Co. 854 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Citizens Utilities Co. v. New West Homes, Inc. 848 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Citizens Utilities Co. v. New West Homes, Inc. 848 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment 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.”
Borota v. University Medical Center 861 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Borota v. University Medical Center 861 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
We review the court’s , : [Ajlthough the trial judge must evaluate the evidence to some extent in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial judge is to apply the same standards as used for a directed verdict.
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the claim or defense ha[s] 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.”
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Nation v. Colla 841 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Nation v. Colla 841 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Batiza v. Superfon 857 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Batiza v. Superfon 857 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
if discovery is complete, a trial court should grant summary judgment if the evidence is such as to require it to grant a motion for directed verdict at trial.
La Cholla Group, Inc. v. Timm 844 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
La Cholla Group, Inc. v. Timm 844 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Rule 56(c), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A court can grant summary judgment when “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.”
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees 851 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees 851 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mecham 844 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
*478 , for adjudicating motions for summary judgment directs the trial court to grant the motion “if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value ...
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Craig 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc. 841 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1992
this court stated that appellate courts *210 should refuse jurisdiction of special action proceedings requesting review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment in all but the most exceptional cases.
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Hansgen 848 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ness v. Western Security Life Insurance 851 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ness v. Western Security Life Insurance 851 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Pima County v. State 850 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Pima County v. State 850 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“the party moving for summary judgment need merely point out by specific reference to the relevant discovery that no evidence exists to support an essential element of the claim.” Orme held that “[i]f the party with the burden of proof on the claim or defense cannot respond to the mo
Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Housing Authority 837 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Housing Authority 837 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Shanks v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. 845 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Transamerica Insurance v. Doe 840 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Transamerica Insurance v. Doe 840 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992