Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southern Pacific Co. v. Tomlinson, 33 P. 710.

27 citing documents.

Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
(“A trial court has the power, where excessive damages have been allowed by the jury, and where the motion to set aside the verdict is based upon this ground, to make a remission a condition precedent to overruling the motion.”), rev’d on other grounds, 163 U.S. 369 (1896); see also Gila Valley Globe & N.
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Waqui v. Tanner Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. 589 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Spur Feeding Company v. Fernandez 472 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1970
Spur Feeding Company v. Fernandez 472 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1970
33 P. 710 (1893), reversed on other grounds, 163 U.S. 369 , 16 S.Ct.
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
33 P. 710 (1893), reversed, 163 U.S. 369 , 16 S.Ct.
Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya 372 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1962
Early in our judicial history, , 33 P. 710, 711 , we laid down the rule: “* * * Of course, if it is apparent to the trial court that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice, a remittitur should not be allowed, but the verdict should be set aside.
Mayo v. Ephrom 325 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1958
Mayo v. Ephrom 325 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1958
33 P. 710 , 711: “ ‘ * * * Of course, if it is apparent to the trial court that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice, a remittitur should not be allowed, but the verdict should be set aside.
Stallcup v. Rathbun 258 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1953
Stallcup v. Rathbun 258 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1953
Justice Sloan, speaking for this court in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Tomlinson, 1893, , 33 P. 710, 711 , laid down the correct rule: “ * * * Of course, if it is apparent to the trial court that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice, a remittitur should not be allowed, but the verdict should be set aside.
Miller v. Condon 182 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1947
Miller v. Condon 182 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1947
33 P. 710 , and cases cited; Gila Valley, G. & N. Ry.
Martinez v. Anderson 69 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1937
Martinez v. Anderson 69 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1937
Ross v. Clark 274 P. 639 Ariz. 1929
Ross v. Clark 274 P. 639 Ariz. 1929
Hilltop Metals Mining Co. v. Hall 241 P. 35 Ariz. 1925
Hilltop Metals Mining Co. v. Hall 241 P. 35 Ariz. 1925
Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. Hall 112 P. 845 Ariz. 1911
Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. Hall 112 P. 845 Ariz. 1911
De Amado v. Friedman 89 P. 588 Ariz. 1907
Southern Pacific Co. v. Fitchett 80 P. 359 Ariz. 1905
Southern Pacific Co. v. Fitchett 80 P. 359 Ariz. 1905