Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 917 P.2d 222.

213 citing documents.

Brown v. Dembow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, see Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, reviewing questions of law, including the interpretation of rules, de novo, ¶ 5 (2018).
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[A] party against whom a witness is produced has a right to show everything which may in the slightest degree affect [the witness’s] credibility.”); see also Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.”).
Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Halloum v. Hasasneh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 14 (App. 2013); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Delacruz v. Neriz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Delacruz v. Neriz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
hed to present would have demonstrated both that he presented “no harm to anyone” and that Delacruz “violat[ed] her restraining order.” We review for an abuse of discretion the superior court’s continuance of an order of protection following an evidentiary hearing, ¶ 5 (App. 2018), and its rulings on the admission of evidence, Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
"Although the existence of a fiduciary duty is generally a question of fact, 'when the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict, the [superior] court has a duty to decide the issue.'" (quoting Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -05 (1996)).
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Johnson v. Provoyeur 426 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Johnson v. Provoyeur 426 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 14 (App. 2013); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Blaser v. Kaiser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (App. 2000) (evidentiary rulings) (citing Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, ); ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (discovery rulings); Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., ¶ 38 (App. 2014) (motion to continue) (citing Alberta Sec.
Robbins v. Townsend Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Robbins v. Townsend Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young , , 506, , 235 (1996).
Harding v. Sternsher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Harding v. Sternsher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, Brown v. U.S. Fid.
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Parks v. Abs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We will not, however, “disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (emphasis added).
Cenite v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cenite v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (1996).
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Keland v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Keland v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (holding that court’s ruling on admissibility of evidence reviewed for clear abuse of discretion).
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Rose Goodyear Properties, LLC v. NBA Enterprises Ltd. Partnership 332 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rose Goodyear Properties, LLC v. NBA Enterprises Ltd. Partnership 332 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014