Cited by

See Est. of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, LTD., ¶ 9 (2000).

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., –87 ¶ 9 (2000) (explaining that failure to object to the witness’s qualifications before or during the witness’s testimony waived any objection to the witness’s qualifications).

¶ 52 (2000) (reiterating that credibility is a fact question for the jury); Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000).

¶14 “An objection to proffered testimony must be made either prior to or at the time it is given, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 9 (2000).

But “[t]he credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000); ¶ 19 (2017).

See Estate v. Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (citation omitted).

.”); see also Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (quoting Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc., ).

¶12 “It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and to find the facts.” ¶ 19 (2017); accord Est. of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, e.g., Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000).

“The court or jury is not compelled to believe the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000).

Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (quoting Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc., ).

“The credibility of [any] witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (citation omitted); ¶ 52 (2000) (“Questions about the accuracy and reliability of a witness’ factual basis, data, and methods go to the weight and credibility of the witness’ testimony and are questions of fact.”).

“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are 6 ATKINS, et al. v. SNELL & WILMER, et al. Decision of the Court issues particularly within the province of the jury.” In re Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (citation omitted).

.” (citation omitted)); Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.” (citation omitted)).

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 9 (2000) (“An objection to proffered testimony must be made either prior to or at the time it is given, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver.”).

See In re Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (citation omitted).

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (noting the court is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party); ¶ 13 (App. 1998) (“We will defer to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.”); Ariz. R. Fam.

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); (presuming jurors follow the instructions given).

¶31 The superior court was “not compelled to believe the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 13 (2000) (citation omitted).

¶ 39, (“Determining veracity and credibility lies within the province of the jury”); Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12, (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd.

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., -91, ¶¶ 26-28, -22 (2000) (defense verdict vacated and remanded for new trial after jury improperly instructed on assumption of risk in medical malpractice action; court would not assume erroneous instruction did not affect the jury’s deliberations); Salt River Project Agric.

See Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12

(recognizing the family court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the appellate court gives deference to its determination), ¶ 8, Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12, (stating that the superior court is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party).

Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12