Cited by

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

213 citing documents.

John Munic Enterprises, Inc. v. Laos 326 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See § 12-2506(A); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -08, -37 (1996).
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See 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.”).
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
P. 50(a) (setting forth the requirements for a motion for judgment as a matter of law and indicating such a motion may be granted where “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that pai’ty on that issue”); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (noting that a “directed verdict is appropriate if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence re
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (capacity); Robert Schalkenbach Found.
Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera 282 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2012
Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera 282 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2012
Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether to admit expert testimony, and “we will not overturn a trial judge’s ruling on this issue unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 93 A directed verdict is appropriate 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.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , ( , ).
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Robles v. Shoreside Petroleum, Inc., , (relating to Arizona Rule of Evidence 403).
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (viewing evidence in light most favorable to proponent of instruction); Ariz. R. Crim.
Precision Heavy Haul, Inc. v. Trail King Industries, Inc. 228 P.3d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Precision Heavy Haul, Inc. v. Trail King Industries, Inc. 228 P.3d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insul.
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
702; *404 Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (stating trial court has broad discretion when determining whether a witness is competent to testify as an expert).
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Messina v. MIDWAY CHEVROLET CO. 209 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Messina v. MIDWAY CHEVROLET CO. 209 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -06 , -35 (1996)
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo 176 P.3d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion); , (reviewing admission of prior-act evidence for abuse of discretion).
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (corporation’s capacity to sue question of law).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , , (trial court has considerable discretion in ruling on the admission of photographs).
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
cf. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“[W]hen a party challenges a trial court’s jury instruction, reversal is justified only if the instruction was both erroneous and ‘prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.’”), quoting Walters v. First Fed.
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Similarly, our supreme court has “review[ed] the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict de novo.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Relying on Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , Ziemak asserts that she is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right because her damages wei*e “liquidated.” But Sehnakenberg maintains that Ziemak had waived her right to .prejudgment interest by failing to specifically request it in the form of judgment she submitted afte
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Id.; Gemstar, Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , , (holding county was entitled to prejudgment interest on claim to recover the cost of medical care from the date that the amount of the claim was capable of exact calculation).
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004