Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company, 539 P.2d 534.

30 citing documents.

Azuly v. C-Back Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Azuly v. C-Back Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Service Co., that presumption cannot hold when, as here, the trial court expressly lists the evidence it considered, and the court’s list leaves some evidence out.
Devries v. Capital Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Devries v. Capital Fund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., (“In determining whether this case was a proper one for summary adjudication, we note that .
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (noting “it is of little value to discuss any of the innumerable precedents wherein application of the [res ipsa loquitur] rule[s] was sought, for each decision must be analyzed upon its particular facts;” affirming summary judgment where “[t]here are various alternate possibilities to [the accident’s] cau
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Co., accord McDonald v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
where we stated: It is true that the exclusive control test is not one to be strictly or rigidly applied.
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
The response of most courts to this problem has been that testimony that a witness did not see an event (knows of no prior accident) “has, in and of itself no probative force sufficient to prove that the event did not occur.”
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 137 Ariz. 1984
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 137 Ariz. 1984
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mast v. Standard Oil Co. of California 680 P.2d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The appellants argue, however, that there was sufficient negative evidence that the LPG was not odorized to present a jury question
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Jackson v. H. H. Robertson Co., supra
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Occidental Chemical Co. v. Connor 604 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1979
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976