Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Perkins v. Komarnyckyj, 834 P.2d 1260.

48 citing documents.

Horton v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Horton v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶13 To be sure, we may presume prejudice in cases of structural error, which is “where the nature of the error deprives a litigant of an 4 HORTON v. HORTON Decision of the Court essential right.”
State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The damage is done.”) ().
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
(“Given the nature of the substantive error made in the ex parte communication in the present case, however, Defendants were deprived of a fundamental right, and a harmless error analysis is therefore inappropriate.”).
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, , ( , ), two distinctly different conclusions could be drawn from the jury’s decision not to award Gloor a contractual offset or recoupment for the bakery product she provided Summers.
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
omm’n, ¶ 43 , (confirming constitutional provisions do not create right to jury trial but preserve jury trial right existing at common law at time of statehood); Chartone, ¶ 30 , ( , which held that parties in malpractice action have right to have every issue tried by jury that has been empaneled); , (holding parties had right to have jury decide liability and damages on counterclaim in tort a
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 228 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, -18 , -63 (1992) (“[Elven if the trial judge has no intention of responding to the jury, and does not respond, the judge must still inform the parties of the communication and allow the parties to voice their positions or concerns for the record.”)
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 18 Moreover, our supreme court has held that “we cannot require a litigant to show the extent of prejudice resulting from an error when, as a practical matter, the nature of the error renders it impossible to prove the extent of any prejudice.” , see also Perez ex rel.
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
of Chandler, , -20 , -65 (1992).
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Although the trial court’s action gave the parties “no opportunity to object or voice them concerns regarding the judge’s procedure until it [was] too late,” , we are unable to conclude that Benenati suffered any prejudice from it.
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
which emphasized that “trial judges should not communicate with the jury regarding substantive legal issues or matters of substantial procedural importance without first notifying and giving counsel an opportunity to state their positions and make whatever record is appropriate.” You
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd. 9 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2000
¶ 24 , we held that some errors are “inherently prejudicial,” and “no further showing is needed to require reversal, remand, and retrial on all issues.” In that case, the trial judge received the following question from the jury during deliberations: “If any jurists [sic] should find for th
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
in which the Arizona Supreme Court dealt with a trial judge’s refusal to allow certain jurors to deliberate on the issue of damages.
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
See, -81 , -84 (1995); , -07 , -05 (1983).
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
-07 , -05 (1983); , cert.
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
our supreme court granted a new trial because, in the trial court’s ex parte communication with the jury, the trial court incorrectly explained the law.
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 877 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 877 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980); -18 , -63 (1992).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by