Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wagner v. Coronet Hotel, 458 P.2d 390.

43 citing documents.

State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , (“[R]elevance requires only a modicum of rationally probative force.”); cf. Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, , ( , ("Prior to the reception of evidence based on out-of-court experiments, it must ordinarily be shown that the experiments were conducted under substantially similar conditions to those prevailing during the occurrence in controversy.
Childress Buick Co. v. O'CONNELL 11 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 880 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bledsoe counters that these differences affect merely the weight the in-court experiment should be given, not its admissibility, , in which we stated: Prior to the reception of evidence based on out-of-court experiments, it must ordinarily be shown that the experiments were conducted under substantially similar conditions to those prevailing during the occurrence in controversy.
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc. 748 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Miller v. Palmer 691 P.2d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
Word v. Motorola, Inc. 662 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1983
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc. 639 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
356 , such as where constitutional infirmities are in question, , or where the very foundation of the case is undercut
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
The “state of the art” , and again in Lunt v. Brady Manufacturing Company, 13 Ariz.App.
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Comment f (1965).
Van Loan v. Van Loan 569 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1977
Mather v. Caterpillar Tractor Corporation 533 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Mather v. Caterpillar Tractor Corporation 533 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Home Indemnity Company v. Bush 513 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Tryon v. Naegle 510 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Moser v. Mardian Construction Company 509 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Moser v. Mardian Construction Company 509 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lunt v. Brady Manufacturing Corp. 475 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Lunt v. Brady Manufacturing Corp. 475 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sanctification by this court of the defendants’ instruction would be tantamount to approving their “state of the art” , and reject now.
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 475 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1970
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
277 , , Maas v. Dreher, supra.
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The Aegerter view has been reconfirmed by a very recent Division Two decision
Lechuga, Inc. v. Montgomery 467 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. 464 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by