American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Justice BRUTINEL,
opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 During jury deliberations after a lengthy trial, a juror asked the bailiff how long deliberations usually lasted. Without consulting anyone, the bailiff answered, “an hour or two should be plenty.” We hold that the trial court did not err by denying the plaintiffs motion for a new trial based on the bailiffs statement without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Although the statement was plainly improper, it was not objectively prejudicial and there was no significant fact question about what occurred.
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 2 In 2005 American Power…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. BoylanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- State v. SpearsArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. MataArizona Supreme Court · 1980
- United States v. Enver CalbasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2017
- Broadband v. SatcomCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
- American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2017
- American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2017
- American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.