Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 961 P.2d 449.

166 citing documents.

Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
do not independently review the jury’s finding, but instead will affirm the judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict, “any substantial evidence could lead reasonable persons to find the ultimate facts sufficient to support the verdict.” ¶ 2, ( ¶ 13, ).
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n, ); ¶ 12, (“Our reason for deference is clear.
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 3, ¶ 4, 56, ¶¶ 10-11, 26-27, 454 (App. 1998) (noting that the court should not “second-guess” the jury allocating seventy-five percent fault to a 911 10 HAVEN v. TAYLOR et al. Decision of the Court operator
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When considering a motion for new trial, the trial court must ask “whether the jury verdict is so ‘manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.’” ¶ 23, (quoting Young Candy & ).
US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
US Express v. Leland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Davis v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Davis v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶17 The trial court has broad discretion to grant a new trial; the court has substantial latitude in deciding whether to upset the verdict because it has seen the witnesses, heard the testimony, and “has a special perspective of the relationship between the evidence and the verdict.” ¶ 12
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance 277 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Further, “[e]ourts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” ¶ 27 , (quoting Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry.
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
In that role, the trial judge sits as a “thirteenth juror (the ninth juror in a civil case),” Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51, 55 ¶ 23, (internal quotation marks omitted), and has broad discretion to find the verdict inconsistent with the evidence and grant a new trial.
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Factual Background and Procedural History ¶2 We view “the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict.”
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 9 , ¶ 23 , Reeves, 119 Ariz. at 163 , 579 P.2d at 1386 ; , Lyle v. Boyle, 16 Ariz.App.
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
The fact finder “sees the witnesses, hears the testimony, and has a special perspective of the relationship between the evidence and the verdict which cannot be recreated by a reviewing court from the printed record.” ¶ 12 , ( , ).
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C. 254 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Thus, when faced with a motion for new trial asserting that the damages were excessive or the verdict resulted from passion or prejudice or was not justified by the evidence, the trial court asks whether the “verdict is so ‘manifestly unfair, unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience.’ ” ¶ 23
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In making this determination, we view “the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict” and will affirm “if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result.” ¶ 13
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
When analyzing this issue, “we „review the evidence in a light 6 most favorable to upholding the jury verdict‟ and will affirm „if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result.‟” Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, ¶ 24
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In making this determination, we view “the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict” and will affirm “if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result.” ¶ 13
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-54, ¶¶ 15-17 , -52 (1998) (citing A.R.S.