Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Logerquist v. McVey, 1 P.3d 113.

83 citing documents.

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
See, ¶ 52 , (as a question of fact, the jury determines the accuracy, weight, and credibility of testimony).
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VICARI v. Lake Havasu City 213 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
P. 41(a) (Historical Notes); , (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”); ¶ 56 , (declining to adopt Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal version of Arizona Rule of Evidence 702).
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
¶ 58 , (recognizing that court can invoke Rule 403 to preclude relevant expert opinion testimony).
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
“The Rules of Evidence, and Rule 702 itself, erect barriers to admission of all opinion evidence: the evidence must be relevant, the witness must be qualified, and the evidence must be the kind that will assist the jury.” ¶ 57
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-58 , -82 (1965) (damage amount in personal injury action is peculiarly within jury’s province, and the “law does not fix precise rules for the measure of damages but leaves their assessment to a jury’s good sense and unbiased judgment”) — , ¶ 65 , (retaining Frye rule because “evi-dentiary testing should come from the adversary system and be decided by the jury”).
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
2 In response, ¶ 62 , Dr. Peles’ testimony was not subject to a Frye hearing because biomechanics was not a “novel science” and because Dr. Peles’ opinion was based on “deterministic laws and principles of physics, mechanics, biomechanics and engineering, along with [Dr. Peles’ own] study/experience/res
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 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
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Yauch, 198 Ariz. at 399-400, ¶ 12, 10 P.3d at 1186-87; - 90, ¶¶ 33-61, -33 (2000) (interpreting Arizona Rule of Evidence 703 differently than its federal counterpart).
State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
The trial court, , concluded that a Frye hearing was necessary because “[t]he experts testifying in most of these cases do not base their testimony on actuarial data created from their personal experience or knowledge, but on data derived by a technique or principle developed by others.” ¶ 3 In its petition for spec
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(confirming that Frye remains the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in Arizona); ¶ 31 , (same).
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
( , ); -90 , -33 (2000).