22 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,195 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Colorado v. New Mexico
467 U.S. 310 (1984) Cited 471 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that party with burden of persuasion may prevail only if he can “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [his] factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ”
Rawlings v. Apodaca
151 Ariz. 149 (Ariz. 1986) Cited 666 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that awarding punitive damages requires "evidence reflect[ing] something more than the conduct necessary to establish the tort"
Gipson v. Kasey
214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) Cited 261 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreseeability is not a factor to be considered by courts when making a determination of duty, because foreseeability involves an inquiry into the specific facts of the case
Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P. L.C. v. Petta
236 Ariz. 568 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 101 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the damage award was not supported where it could not be reconciled with other Arizona civil jury verdicts
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co.
150 Ariz. 326 (Ariz. 1986) Cited 209 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that punitive damages is based upon "evil mind" and aggravated and outrageous conduct
Nardelli v. Metro. Grp. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
230 Ariz. 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 65 times 9 Legal Analyses
Finding bad faith in insurer's unreasonable decision to repair rather than scrap insured's automobile, to cover less than actual repair costs, and not to advise policyholders of relevant policy provisions
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
157 Ariz. 411 (Ariz. 1988) Cited 121 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that jury may infer insurer's intent to minimize insurer's payment through improper means from defendant's actions
State v. King
158 Ariz. 419 (Ariz. 1988) Cited 108 times
Holding that after determining that error occurred, a court must evaluate the prejudicial nature of the error
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp.
222 Ariz. 139 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 50 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding that "the superior court was required to accord preclusive effect to the compensability determinations made by the administrative law judges in the ICA proceedings."

Ragaller v. Ace American Insurance Company et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that party with burden of persuasion may prevail only if he can “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [his] factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ”

Holding that awarding punitive damages requires "evidence reflect[ing] something more than the conduct necessary to establish the tort"

Holding that foreseeability is not a factor to be considered by courts when making a determination of duty, because foreseeability involves an inquiry into the specific facts of the case

Finding that the damage award was not supported where it could not be reconciled with other Arizona civil jury verdicts

Holding that punitive damages is based upon "evil mind" and aggravated and outrageous conduct

Finding bad faith in insurer's unreasonable decision to repair rather than scrap insured's automobile, to cover less than actual repair costs, and not to advise policyholders of relevant policy provisions

Holding that jury may infer insurer's intent to minimize insurer's payment through improper means from defendant's actions

Holding that after determining that error occurred, a court must evaluate the prejudicial nature of the error

Finding that "the superior court was required to accord preclusive effect to the compensability determinations made by the administrative law judges in the ICA proceedings."