Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Worthington v. Funk, 442 P.2d 153.

34 citing documents.

Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Loffa v. Intel Corp. 738 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
534 , , Fulton v. Johannsen, 3 Ariz.App.
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Long v. Corvo 639 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
For the first time, , , that: “If a motor vehicle driver himself created the sudden emergency or brought about the perilous situation through his own negligence, he cannot avoid liability for an injury merely on the ground that his acts were done in the stress of a sudden emergency.
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
McCarty v. FC Kingston Company 522 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
McCarty v. FC Kingston Company 522 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
.In determining whether an instruction is justified, we must consider the evidence in the strongest possible manner in support of the theory of the party asking the instruction.”
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Winchester v. Palko 504 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Co., 2 Ariz.App.
Collins v. County of Maricopa 488 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Collins v. County of Maricopa 488 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Hall v. Mertz 480 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
27 , , ; Christy v. Baker, 7 Ariz.App.
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Valentine v. Faulkner 473 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
We find the following additional comments by the trial court contained in its minute order granting plaintiffs a new trial: “In Worthington vs. Funk, [ ] 442 P2[d] 153 (Arizona Court of Appeals 6-12-68), the Court pointed out the model uniform jury instruction containing the suggestions made by the Supreme Court in Gilbert vs Quinet, , 369 P2[d] 267 [1962].
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
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cor-num, , , 206 P. 1085 (1922); Crandall v. Consolidated Tel., etc., Co., , 127 P. 994 (1912) ; , State v. Watson, 7 Ariz.App.
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Zelman v. Stauder 466 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Bullock v. Geyer 454 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Bullock v. Geyer 454 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
McDowell v. Davis 442 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
we recognized that in the future it is best to follow the model instruction set forth therein which resulted from the Supreme Court’s holding in Quinet .
LeRoy v. Phillips 448 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
LeRoy v. Phillips 448 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968