party requesting instruction in Arizona

17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co.green arizctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Co., 152 Ariz. 455, 462 (App. 1986).	1	1
State v. Kinggreen ariz · 2010 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, ¶ 13 , 235 P.3d 240, 243 (2010). 2015See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, ¶ 13 , 235 P.3d 240, 243 (2010).	1	1
Amerco v. Shoengreen arizctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008AMERCO v. Shoen, 184 Ariz. 150, 156 , 907 P.2d 536, 542 (App. 1995). ¶ 22 The court must give a proposed jury instruction “if: (1) the evidence presented supports the instruction, (2) the instruction is proper under the law, and (3) the instruction pertains to an important issue, and the gist of the instruction is not given in any other instructions.” DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. 2008AMERCO v. Shoen, 184 Ariz. 150, 156 , 907 P.2d 536, 542 (App. 1995). ¶ 22 The court must give a proposed jury instruction “if: (1) the evidence presented supports the instruction, (2) the instruction is proper under the law, and (3) the instruction pertains to an important issue, and the gist of the instruction is not given in any other instructions.” DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr.	1	1
State v. Rosas-Hernandezgreen arizctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Jury Instructions ¶ 21 The Paulsens next argue that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, mitigation of damages, spoliation of evidence, and treble damages. 12 “We review a trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion,” State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212, 220, ¶ 31 , 42 P.3d 1177, 1185 (App.2002), and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 2008Jury Instructions ¶ 21 The Paulsens next argue that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, mitigation of damages, spoliation of evidence, and treble damages. 12 “We review a trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion,” State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212, 220, ¶ 31 , 42 P.3d 1177, 1185 (App.2002), and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.	1	1
Tyler v. Children's Home Soc'y of Californiagreen calctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Cal., 29 Cal. App.4th 511, 527 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 299 (Cal.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 2614 , 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). 290 ¶ 10 “In determining whether a jury instruction is justified, we must view the evidence in the strongest manner supporting the theory of the party requesting the instruction. 1999See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Cal., 29 Cal. App.4th 511, 527 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 299 (Cal.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 2614 , 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). 290 ¶ 10 “In determining whether a jury instruction is justified, we must view the evidence in the strongest manner supporting the theory of the party requesting the instruction.	1	1
Rogers v. Corrosion Products, Inc.green scotus · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Cal., 29 Cal. App.4th 511, 527 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 299 (Cal.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 2614 , 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). *290 ¶ 10 “In determining whether a jury instruction is justified, we must view the evidence in the strongest manner supporting the theory of the party requesting the instruction.	1	1
Truly v. Bayou Steel Corp.green scotus · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Cal., 29 Cal. App.4th 511, 527 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 299 (Cal.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 2614 , 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). *290 ¶ 10 “In determining whether a jury instruction is justified, we must view the evidence in the strongest manner supporting the theory of the party requesting the instruction.	1	1
W. R. Grace & Co. v. West Virginiagreen scotus · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y of Cal., 29 Cal. App.4th 511, 527 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 299 (Cal.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 2614 , 132 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). *290 ¶ 10 “In determining whether a jury instruction is justified, we must view the evidence in the strongest manner supporting the theory of the party requesting the instruction.	1	1
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp.green arizctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp., 132 Ariz. 434, 443 , 646 P.2d 319, 328 (App.1982). 1988Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp., 132 Ariz. 434, 443 , 646 P.2d 319, 328 (App.1982).	1	1
Tansy v. Morgangreen ariz · 1979 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966). 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Webb v. Hardin green ariz · 1939 2 sentences 1960In determining whether an instruction should be given we must consider the evidence in the strongest possible manner in support of the theory of the party requesting the instruction, Webb v. Hardin, 53 Ariz. 310 , 89 P.2d 30 , and in weighing the sufficiency of the evidence in this case to justify the giving of the requested instruction, the inferences which reasonably and logically flow from the evidence are to be considered and such inferences are a part of the evidence. 1960In determining whether an instruction should be given we must consider the evidence in the strongest possible manner in support of the theory of the party requesting the instruction, Webb v. Hardin, 53 Ariz. 310 , 89 P.2d 30 , and in weighing the sufficiency of the evidence in this case to justify the giving of the requested instruction, the inferences which reasonably and logically flow from the evidence are to be considered and such inferences are a part of the evidence.	3	1960–1979
Schneider v. MacAri green ariz · 1975 2 sentences 1982Schneider v. Macari, 111 Ariz. 483 , 533 P.2d 540 (1975); Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967). 1982Schneider v. Macari, 111 Ariz. 483 , 533 P.2d 540 (1975); Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967).	2	1979–1982
Casey v. Marshall green ariz · 1946 2 sentences 1970Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946); Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968). 1970Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946); Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968).	2	1968–1970
Trauscht v. Lamb green ariz · 1954 2 sentences 1970Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946); Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968). 1968Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz. 276 , 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946).	2	1968–1970
State v. Gendron green ariz · 1991 1 sentence 2023“In determining slightest evidence, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction and do not weigh the evidence nor resolve evidentiary conflicts.” Id. at 195, ¶ 11. ¶13 Kemp produced “slightest evidence” of justification by testifying that his actions were “the result of the previous meeting” with Detective Platt and the corrections investigator and that law enforcement “gave [him] permission to sell drugs.” And unlike in Gendron, where the defendant “specifically disclaimed reliance on a justification defense,” justification was Kemp’s theory of the ca	1	2023–2023
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida green arizctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2022Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77, ¶ 9 .	1	2022–2022
Hibner v. Gleason neutral ariz · 1970 1 sentence 1988The rule is that the evidence must be construed in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction on last clear chance. [Citations omitted.] The burden is upon the defendant here to show an abuse of discretion in the granting of a new trial. [Citations omitted.] Hibner, 105 Ariz. at 552 , 468 P.2d at 579 (emphasis added).	1	1988–1988
Starr v. Campos green arizctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1984Starr v. Campos, 134 Ariz. 254 , 655 P.2d 794 (App.1982). 1984Starr v. Campos, 134 Ariz. 254 , 655 P.2d 794 (App.1982).	1	1984–1984
Evans v. Pickett green ariz · 1967 2 sentences 1982Schneider v. Macari, 111 Ariz. 483 , 533 P.2d 540 (1975); Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967). 1982Schneider v. Macari, 111 Ariz. 483 , 533 P.2d 540 (1975); Evans v. Pickett, 102 Ariz. 393 , 430 P.2d 413 (1967).	1	1982–1982
Winchester v. Palko green arizctapp · 1972 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966). 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966).	1	1982–1982
Worthington v. Funk green arizctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966). 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966).	1	1982–1982
Fulton v. Johannsen green arizctapp · 1966 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966). 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966).	1	1982–1982
Johnson v. Orcutt green ariz · 1962 2 sentences 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966). 1982See, e.g., Tansy v. Morgan, 124 Ariz. 362 , 604 P.2d 626 (1979); Johnson v. Orcutt, 92 Ariz. 295 , 376 P.2d 557 (1962); Winchester v. Palko, 18 Ariz.App. 534 , 504 P.2d 65 (1972); Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App. 595 , 442 P.2d 153 (1968); Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 (1966).	1	1982–1982
Aegerter v. Duncan green arizctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1970Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946); Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968). 1970Trauscht v. Lamb, 77 Ariz, 276, 270 P.2d 1071 (1954); Casey v. Marshall, 64 Ariz. 232 , 168 P.2d 240 (1946); Aegerter v. Duncan, 7 Ariz.App. 239 , 437 P.2d 991 (1968).	1	1970–1970
City of Tucson v. Holliday green arizctapp · 1966 2 sentences 1969Webb v. Hardin, 53 Ariz. 310 , 89 P.2d 30 (1939); City of Tucson v. Holliday, 3 Ariz.App. 10 , 411 P.2d 183 (1966). 1969Webb v. Hardin, 53 Ariz. 310 , 89 P.2d 30 (1939); City of Tucson v. Holliday, 3 Ariz.App. 10 , 411 P.2d 183 (1966).	1	1969–1969
Campbell v. Chatwin green ariz · 1967 2 sentences 1967This view is supported by Campbell v. Chatwin, 102 Ariz. 251 , 428 P.2d 108 (1967), and by Schecter v. Killingsworth, supra, in which last-named case it is stated: “The statute’s requirement of security is based, not upon the establishment of negligence, but upon the standard that, in ■ the opinion of the administrative official, a judgment may be recovered, against the motorist. 1967This view is supported by Campbell v. Chatwin, 102 Ariz. 251 , 428 P.2d 108 (1967), and by Schecter v. Killingsworth, supra, in which last-named case it is stated: “The statute’s requirement of security is based, not upon the establishment of negligence, but upon the standard that, in ■ the opinion of the administrative official, a judgment may be recovered, against the motorist.	1	1967–1967

Where else courts name it

WA 81 (2000–2025) KS 64 (1990–2021) MS 55 (1986–2025) OR 44 (1986–2026) IN 36 (1892–1987) MN 29 (2001–2024) IA 24 (1981–2021) AZ 17 (1960–2023) CA 12 (1958–2025) WI 8 (1995–2023) GA 7 (1982–2022) VA 7 (1984–2007) NM 7 (1987–2019) IL 5 (1976–2023) TX 5 (1993–2018) NC 5 (2005–2014) MD 4 (1974–2024) DC 4 (2000–2016) MI 3 (1972–1985) FL 3 (1966–1990) AR 2 (1994–1997) KY 2 (2021–2022) TN 2 (1989–2016) CO 2 (2013–2020) WY 2 (1992–2022) NE 2 (1937–1940) ID 2 (1992–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check