Cited by

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

213 citing documents.

American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
To warrant reversal, the jury instruction must have been not only erroneous, but “prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (quoting Walters v. First Fed.
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See Gemstar, Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 9 We review de novo the trial court’s grant of the motion for JMOL, Gemstar, Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , and consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the Barretts as the non-prevailing parties.
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
We must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that Arizona Rule of Evidence 403 precluded admission of the Determination because it contained “conclusions.” See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (noting that we review a trial judge’s evidentiary rulings only for an abuse of discretion).
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Bothell, , ; see also Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Gemstar Ltd v. Ernst & Young
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The “instructions given create[d] substantial doubt as to whether or not the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (quoting Melancon v. USAA Cas.
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , , 1189 n. 7 (App.1995), vacated on other grounds, , , see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b) (1977).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, n.7 (App. 1995), vacated on other grounds, P.2d 222 (1996); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 876(b) -18- (1977).
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , ( , ).
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , vacated on other grounds
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , Farmers Ins.
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gemstar, Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Pankratz 2 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Larsen v. Decker 995 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review ¶ 6 We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion; we will not reverse unless unfair prejudice resulted, see Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , or the court incorrectly applied the law.
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 977 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Gemstar, Ltd., v. Ernst & Young, , Shoen .
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Although the existence of a fiduciary duty is generally a question of fact, “[w]hen the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict, the trial court has a duty to decide the issue.” See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, -05 , -34 (1996) (quoting Rhoads, 145 Ariz. at 148 , 700 P.2d at 846 ).
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Reversal on the basis of a challenge to a jury instruction “is justified only if the instruction was both erroneous and ‘prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appealing party.’ ” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, , (quoting Walters v. First Fed.
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank 978 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
A. Standard of Review ¶27 “We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unless a clear abuse of discretion appeal’s and prejudice results.” Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
Link v. Pima County 972 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998