Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons, 571 P.2d 699.

32 citing documents.

Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶4 Munger Chadwick is correct that “[w]e will look to the substance and not the form” in determining what type of motion has been made, and that a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for an appeal to be taken.
Higginbotham v. AN MOTORS OF SCOTTSDALE 269 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Higginbotham v. AN MOTORS OF SCOTTSDALE 269 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
4 ¶ 7 “Under Arizona law, an employee is acting within the scope of his employment while he is doing any reasonable thing which his employment expressly or impliedly authorizes him to do or which may reasonably be said to have been contemplated by that *553 employment as necessarily or probably incidental to the employment.”
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 251 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 13 , Carnes further argues that PNI is vicariously liable because Sebastian’s drive to and from work was contemplated by PNI and incidental to her employment as a newspaper delivery person.
BRYSTAL McCLOUD v. THOMAS MAX KIMBRO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
BRYSTAL McCLOUD v. THOMAS MAX KIMBRO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Co., -36, -71 (App. 1994), (actions, including those serving personal desires, deemed in scope of employment if incidental to employee‟s legitimate work activity); Love v. Liberty Mut.
Gordon v. Liguori 895 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gordon v. Liguori 895 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
126, 128 , (2) whether the party failed to call a seemingly available witness whose testimony it would naturally be expected to produce if it were favorable, id.; , and (3) whether the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact is uniquely within the knowledge of the witness, Ponce, 120 Ariz. at 136 , 584 P.2d at 600 ( , ).
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
: Under Arizona law, an employee is acting within the scope of his employment while he is doing any reasonable thing which his employment expressly or impliedly authorizes him to do or which may reasonably *136 be said to have been contemplated by that employment as necessarily or pr
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-27 , -26 (1974); -05 , -02 (App.1977).
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Blocher v. Thompson 818 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
Udall & Livermore, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 124 at 251 (2d ed. 1982).
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
Rule 801(d)(1)(B), Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Vagnozzi 644 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
and Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Sims, *228 , the trial judge has discretion to treat his motion as one for a new trial pursuant to civil Rule 59(a) even though it did not meet the requirements stated in Hegel and, more particularly, Desmond .
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
See Hegel v. O’Malley Insurance Co., Inc.
Howard v. Associated Grocers 601 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1979
Howard v. Associated Grocers 601 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs. 573 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1977
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc., Agents & Brkrs. 573 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1977

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by