Ball v. Prentice

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing the 26 Arizona courts’ adoption of the Restatement NIED provision
• reviewing denial of motion for partial summary judgment “based on the facts in the record,” and holding “there is sufficient evidence . . . for a jury to infer” what is “necessary for imposition of punitive damages”
• plaintiff entitled to have jury decide whether nausea, loss of sleep, headaches, and emotional problems causally connected to automobile accident
• “Whether Ball’s emotional problems, nausea, sleeplessness, tension and 26 headaches are causally connected to the accident and the extent and duration 27 of those injuries is a matter for jury determination.”
• “Whether Ball’s 17 emotional problems, nausea, sleeplessness, tension and headaches are causally connected 18 to the accident and the extent and duration of those injuries is a matter for jury 19 determination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).