jmol motion in Arizona

2017Robertson, 202 Ariz. at 290–91, ¶ 14 (citing Shoen v. Shoen, 191 Ariz. 64 , 65–66 (1997)). ¶11 Here, we cannot say the facts produced by Wallace had so little probative value that reasonable jurors could not agree with her.

2003Shoen v. Shoen, 191 Ariz. 64, 65-66 , 952 P.2d 302, 303-04 (App.1997). “[W]e view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Murcott v. Best W.

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as 'Tt]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App.2000). 5 .

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as 'Tt]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App.2000). 5 .

2004In considering a JMOL motion, a trial court should apply the same test *260 for deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment, that is, the “motion should be granted if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 , 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990).

2004In considering a JMOL motion, a trial court should apply the same test *260 for deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment, that is, the “motion should be granted if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 , 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990).

2003And, “[w]hen we review the action of a board of adjustment on appeal, we determine only if there is some credible evidence to support the board’s ruling.” Burroughs v. Town of Paradise Valley, 150 Ariz. 570, 573 , 724 P.2d 1239, 1242 (App.1986).

2003And, “[w]hen we review the action of a board of adjustment on appeal, we determine only if there is some credible evidence to support the board’s ruling.” Burroughs v. Town of Paradise Valley, 150 Ariz. 570, 573 , 724 P.2d 1239, 1242 (App.1986).

2003Substantive Due Process ¶ 43 Maraña argues that “the trial court erred by denying [its JMOL motion] as to the due process claim” because “Aegis’[s] primary complaint was that the Town’s Planning Commission and Town Council were improperly swayed by negative press coverage and neighborhood opposition in denying the CUP” and because Aegis “failed to present sufficient facts to support a jury finding of liability on this claim.” In reviewing this issue, we first note that “the granting or the refusal to grant rezoning by special use permit is a legislative function of the Town Council subject to

2003Substantive Due Process ¶ 43 Maraña argues that “the trial court erred by denying [its JMOL motion] as to the due process claim” because “Aegis’[s] primary complaint was that the Town’s Planning Commission and Town Council were improperly swayed by negative press coverage and neighborhood opposition in denying the CUP” and because Aegis “failed to present sufficient facts to support a jury finding of liability on this claim.” In reviewing this issue, we first note that “the granting or the refusal to grant rezoning by special use permit is a legislative function of the Town Council subject to

2023See Schwab, 207 Ariz. at 59 ¶ 15; see also Glazer v. State, 237 Ariz. 160 , 167 ¶ 29 (2015) (“The standards for granting or denying a motion for JMOL and a motion for summary judgment are the same.”).

2023See Schwab, 207 Ariz. at 59 ¶ 15; see also Glazer v. State, 237 Ariz. 160 , 167 ¶ 29 (2015) (“The standards for granting or denying a motion for JMOL and a motion for summary judgment are the same.”).

2022Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 27, ¶ 6 (App. 2011) (JMOL motion). 6 KUNASEK v. JOHNSON, et al.

2020See Marquette Venture Partners II, L.P. v. Leonesio, 227 Ariz. 179, 183, ¶ 13 (App. 2011); Ariz. R.

2018Inc., 228 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11 (App. 2011), but “must give ‘full credence to the right of the jury to determine credibility, 4 DUPRAY, et al. v. JAI DINING Opinion of the Court weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable conclusions therefrom[,]’” id. (quoting State v. Clifton, 134 Ariz. 345, 348 (App. 1982)).

2018A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cnty., 222 Ariz. 515, 524, ¶ 14 (App. 2009).

2018A JMOL motion should be granted “if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶42 At the close of a party’s case-in-chief, if “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party . . . the court may . . . grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling

2017See Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. at 53, ¶ 13 . ¶13 In April 2016, GSD renewed its JMOL motion, arguing an equitable claim can be decided by the jury only if parties to the litigation so stipulate.

2016Warne Invs., Ltd. v. Higgins, 219 Ariz. 186 , 194 ¶ 33, 195 P.3d 645, 653 (App. 2008).

2016Warne Invs., Ltd. v. Higgins, 219 Ariz. 186 , 194 ¶ 33, 195 P.3d 645, 653 (App. 2008).

2010See Barrett, 207 Ariz. 374, ¶ 24 , 86 P.3d at 960-61 . 13 extent the evidence of her causal role was unclear due to the acts of Dr. Myer and other physicians or staff treating Salica, the trial court did not err in denying the JMOL motion and submitting the case to the jury.

2010See Barrett, 207 Ariz. 374, ¶ 24 , 86 P.3d at 960-61 . 13 extent the evidence of her causal role was unclear due to the acts of Dr. Myer and other physicians or staff treating Salica, the trial court did not err in denying the JMOL motion and submitting the case to the jury.

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as “[t]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App. 2000). 5 “We review the grant of a motion for directed verdict de novo and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Johnson v. Pankratz, 196 Ariz. 621, ¶ 4 , 2 P.3d 1266, 1268 (App. 2000). ¶9 We agree with Warner that “[t]here [wa]s no legal basis for the court’s decision to dismiss Hoggatt from the action.” “It is well-established law that an agent will not be exc

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as “[t]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App. 2000). 5 “We review the grant of a motion for directed verdict de novo and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Johnson v. Pankratz, 196 Ariz. 621, ¶ 4 , 2 P.3d 1266, 1268 (App. 2000). ¶9 We agree with Warner that “[t]here [wa]s no legal basis for the court’s decision to dismiss Hoggatt from the action.” “It is well-established law that an agent will not be exc

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as “[t]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App. 2000). 5 “We review the grant of a motion for directed verdict de novo and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Johnson v. Pankratz, 196 Ariz. 621, ¶ 4 , 2 P.3d 1266, 1268 (App. 2000). ¶9 We agree with Warner that “[t]here [wa]s no legal basis for the court’s decision to dismiss Hoggatt from the action.” “It is well-established law that an agent will not be exc

2008We use the terms interchangeably, as “[t]he tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same.” Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, ¶ 36 , 9 P.3d 1088, 1095 (App. 2000). 5 “We review the grant of a motion for directed verdict de novo and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Johnson v. Pankratz, 196 Ariz. 621, ¶ 4 , 2 P.3d 1266, 1268 (App. 2000). ¶9 We agree with Warner that “[t]here [wa]s no legal basis for the court’s decision to dismiss Hoggatt from the action.” “It is well-established law that an agent will not be exc

2000See Times Mirror Co. v. Sisk, 122 Ariz. 174, 178 , 593 P.2d 924, 928 (App.1978).

2000See Times Mirror Co. v. Sisk, 122 Ariz. 174, 178 , 593 P.2d 924, 928 (App.1978).