Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp., 646 P.2d 319.

44 citing documents.

Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., (explaining that the trial court “need not instruct on every refinement suggested by counsel”).
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Quintiliani v. Concentric Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Corp., ("It is not error to refuse to give requested instructions where the concepts contained therein are adequately conveyed through given instructions.").
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Corp., , (noting the rule reflects “a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety” (quoting Fed.R.Evid.
Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Corp., , (quoting Fed.R.Evid.
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Amerco v. Shoen 907 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
According to another, the trial court should examine whether prejudice is “affirmatively probable.” , -23 , -03 (App.1987); see also Brooks v. Zahn, 170 Ariz. at 549 , 826 P.2d at 1175 .
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Pioneer Roofing Co., supra
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Elliott v. Videan 791 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
“The test is whether prejudice seems affirmatively probable and prejudice will not be presumed, but must appear probable from the record.”
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
“The test is whether prejudice seems affirmatively probable and prejudice will not be presumed, but must ap *423 pear probable from the record.”
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 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
L.B. Nelson Corp. v. Western American Financial Corp. 722 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGuire v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 728 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
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
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, , we must accept that Coleman knew, twenty years before this accident, that a stream of'highly flammable white gas could be emitted through the vent hole of the stove’s gas cap if that cap was unscrewed with the tank under pressure.
Rabe v. Cut and Curl of Plaza 75, Inc. 715 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rabe v. Cut and Curl of Plaza 75, Inc. 715 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hallmark v. Allied Products *551 Corp., , Sequoia Mfg.
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
it was observed that the trial court should insure that evidence is not improperly admitted under a pretext of the “other purpose” exception.
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Ulan v. Richtars, 8 Ariz.App.