Legal Opinion

Copeland v. City of Yuma

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 11, 1989No. 1 CA-CV 88-266PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FIDEL, Judge.

On March 25, 1988, a jury returned a $40,000 verdict in plaintiffs’ favor in a personal injury action against the City of Yuma and one of its employees. On April 13, 1988, defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial. Because the motion was filed beyond the fifteen day time limit of Rule 59,16 A.R.S. Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, it was stricken as untimely. On April 25, 1988, defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.

Defendants argue on appeal that they should be granted a new trial (1) because the jury was incorrectly…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Trojanovich v. MarshallArizona Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Daru v. MartinArizona Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Kelch v. CoursonArizona Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1965

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  3. Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  4. Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Development Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  5. Henry Ex Rel. Estate of Wilson v. HealthPartners of Southern ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API