Cited by

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

166 citing documents.

Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 26 The “jury may apportion fault among defendants and nonparties, without distinguishing between intentional and negligent conduct or requiring that a minimum percentage of responsibility be assigned to the former.” ¶ 20
Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope 200 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
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
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
22 (“We review the trial judge’s decision to deny post-trial motions for an abuse of discretion, 41 new review of the trial court’s rulings, and a party must file its notice within thirty days—twice the time permitted for the motions enumera
Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“Guiding this statutory revision was a desire to ‘increase the fairness of the tort system for both plaintiffs and defendants’ by making each tortfeasor liable for only his or her share of fault, and no more.” ¶ 16 , (citation omitted).
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 172 P.3d 410 Ariz. 2007
Notwithstanding the potential difficulty of the task, “[w]e have no doubt that jurors are capable of evaluating degrees of fault, and the statute reflects our legislature’s agreement.” , 55 ¶ 21
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 We view “the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict[s].”
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
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
¶ 13 , (“if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result, we will affirm the judgment.”).
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Criticized Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 23 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Catherine’s
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
¶ 13 , (“if any substantial evidence exists permitting reasonable persons to reach such a result, we will affirm the judgment.”).
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
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
11 review the trial judge’s decision to deny post-trial motions for an abuse of discretion.”
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
will be able to understand the duties involved in situations similar to this case, and will be able to equitably apportion fault according to those duties and the facts presented in the particular case.” ¶ 21 , ( , ) (alterations in original).
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Crackel v. Allstate Ins.
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Distinguished Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.2d 449 (1998),2 P.2d 151 (1984), addressed allegations that 911 operators had negligently responded to emergency calls by either failing to act on a reported threat (Austin) or assigning a low priority to an eventual murder victim’s call for help (Hutcher
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Mealey v. Arndt 76 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Mealey v. Arndt 76 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Martinez v. Schneider Enter., Inc., ¶ 12, (“We review the trial judge's decision to deny post- trial motions for an abuse of discretion, recognizing that he had substantial latitude in deciding whether to upset the verdict.”).
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flanders v. Maricopa County 54 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
ust not ‘take the case away from the jury’ by combing the record for evidence supporting a conclusion or inference different from that reached here____‘Courts 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 , (citations omitted).
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
-2- ¶¶12-13 (1998); Blakely Oil, Inc. v. Wells Truckways, Ltd.
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Id., ¶ 38-39 (Fidel, J., dissenting) ( ¶¶ 15-16, ¶¶ 15-16 (1998); Dietz v. General Elec.
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc. 31 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
If 19 Contrary to the trial court’s belief, the Arizona Supreme Court’s , (Hutcherson II) does not vitiate the holding in Styles .
Fehribach v. Smith 22 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001