DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

1312 citing documents.

  • 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
  • Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (“Either 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.”) In a defam
  • Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Matter of Estate of Johnson 811 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    Summary judgment is appropriate where “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.”
  • Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 328 , 106 S.Ct.