Cited by

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

1307 citing documents.

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.