DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Industrial Commission, 486 P.2d 176.

21 citing documents.

  • Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
    (concluding the trial court properly refused a proposed instruction because it would “only heighten the confusion of the jury in an already sufficiently confused area”).
  • Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    In determining whether the instructions given were correct, the test is “whether, upon the whole charge, the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision.” , see also Timmons, supra.
  • Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
    (trial court properly refused such an instruction because it would “only heighten the confusion of the jury in an already sufficiently confused area”).
  • Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    In determining whether the instructions given were correct, the test is “whether, upon the whole charge, the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision.”
  • Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Town of Oro Valley v. Superior Court 721 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    “In Arizona, to successfully maintain an action for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains, that defendant failed to perform that duty and that such failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.”
  • Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
  • Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    And that the proper test is not whether the injurious results or consequences were possible, but whether they were likely to occur according to the usual experience of persons.” Appellant contends that the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law, , and that it was not supported by the evidence.
  • Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
    “In Arizona, to successfully maintain an action for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains, that defendant failed to perform that duty and that such failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.”
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    the Arizona Supreme Court held that the duty of a distributor of electric power is established by the foreseeability of harm.
  • Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Similarly, , the Arizona Supreme Court stated that: In a case such as this where the establishment of the duty, i.e., foreseeability of harm, varies as a result of factual distinctions, we have held what is or is not negligence or what is foreseeable is a question for the trier of fact.
  • Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
  • Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
  • Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Porterie v. Peters 532 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1975
  • Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973