Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Winchester v. Palko, 504 P.2d 65.

30 citing documents.

Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
and Manhattan-Dickman Constr.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 861 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Because the word “should” can be taken to indicate obligation or mandate rather than desirability or preference, -38 , -69 (1972): If you find that Plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, then you may find for the Defendant or for the Plaintiff as you may see fit.
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Considering the record in the manner most strongly supporting the requested instructions, , no evidence suggested any other meaning for the clause.
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Roundy v. Stewart 680 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Petefish v. Dawe 672 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See, , , , Worthington v. Funk, 7 Ariz.App.
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
277 , , Malinski v. Pember, 9 Ariz.App.
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Since the word “should” tends to be confusing, , be used.
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Steed v. Cuevas 540 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
rmine each of these issues in favor of the plaintiff, then you must find for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church 537 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, *298 16 A.R.S.
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Although the court could have given plaintiff’s requested instruction, , 2 , its failure to do so did not constitute error.
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Anderson v. Muniz 515 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973