Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McAlister v. Citibank 829 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Summary judgment is properly granted by the trial court “if the facts produced in support of the 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.”
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
This conclusion, however, does not prevent a trial court from granting summary judgment or a directed verdict in favor of either a worker or a , (discussing standard for granting summary judgment or directed verdict).
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
McCallister Co. v. Kastella 825 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Under the applicable standard of review, a summary judgment motion “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.”
Bledsoe v. Goodfarb 823 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1991
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Do by Minker v. Farmers Ins. Co. 828 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Bledsoe v. Goodfarb 823 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1991
Do by Minker v. Farmers Ins. Co. 828 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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.”
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.”
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Gateway Potato Sales v. G.B. Investment Co. 822 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Gateway Potato Sales v. G.B. Investment Co. 822 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 819 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1991
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 819 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rule 56, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
A trial court should grant a motion for directed verdict “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.”
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Manley v. Ticor Title Insurance 816 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1991
Manley v. Ticor Title Insurance 816 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1991
Moreno v. Garcia 821 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Moreno v. Garcia 821 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
DISCUSSION 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.”
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
actively responsible for the injury____”
Warren v. Whitehall Income Fund 86 823 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maders v. Estes Co. 820 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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.”
Warren v. Whitehall Income Fund 86 823 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Plattner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 812 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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.”
Easter v. Percy 810 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Easter v. Percy 810 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
As appellant points out, negligence actions are generally not proper subjects for summary judgment motions, an area in which “as a matter of historical practice and constitutional requirement, the jury is given the most deference in weighing evidence, drawing inferences, and reaching conclusions on questions of negligence, causation, and damages.”
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991