8 Ariz. App. 256 - Heaton v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Reeves v. Markle (1978), General Motors Corporation v. Tate (1974)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Mercer v. Perez · Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin · Pima County v. Bilby · Smith v. Moroney · Beliak Ex Rel. Beliak v. Plants
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The rule [59(m)] is designed to inform both the parties and the appellate court of the particular ground or grounds upon which the trial court has acted in granting a new trial, and so to prevent a situation where both appellant and the appellate court are ‘ * * * compelled to speculate as to the reasons for ordering a new trial’. Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 100 Ariz. 80, 83 , 411 P.2d 809, 811 (1966). “ * * * Though we may not agree with the trial court’s appraisal from a reading of the dry record before us, still this is his appraisal from the trial bench. We do not believe that “our Supreme Court intends to require the trial judge to render a written opinion setting forth his rationale for granting a new trial motion or to undertake a lengthy review of the facts. Rule 59 (m) is designed to serve a practical purpose and should receive a practical construction. * * Heaton v. Waters, 8 Ariz.App. 256, 258, 259 , 445 P.2d 458 (1968).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * While in Yoo Thun Lim , the Court expressly overruled some statements made by the Court in State v. Ross, 97 Ariz. 51 , 396 P.2d 619 (1964), on the effect of the trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 59 (m), our Supreme Court left untouched the long-standing rule that an Arizona trial judge, ‘ * * * sitting as a thirteenth juror, * * * ’ may weigh the evidence in passing on a motion for new trial, [citation omitted.] An appellate court will not disturb an order granting a new trial ‘ * * * unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion, [citations omitted.]’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” 79 Ariz. at 39 , 282 P.2d at 472 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crowe v. Miller
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.