Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reader v. General Motors Corporation, 483 P.2d 1388.

48 citing documents.

Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
207 , vacated on other grounds, , to support their argument that Jiffy Lube’s duty to inspect the Volvo’s tires arose from the contractual relationship between the parties.
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
"This standard of relevance is not particularly high.” , (citations omitted); , (“It is not necessary that such evidence be sufficient to support a finding of an ultimate fact; it is enough if the evidence, if admitted, would render the desired inference more probable.”).
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Strict liability “is not based upon traditional concepts of fault,” , but is imposed in an attempt to make the products safer.
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc. 684 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc. 684 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Elco Veterinary Supply v. Industrial Commission 668 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arrow Leasing Corp. v. Cummins Arizona Diesel, Inc. 666 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arrow Leasing Corp. v. Cummins Arizona Diesel, Inc. 666 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rhodes v. International Harvester Co. 641 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rhodes v. International Harvester Co. 641 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Riddell, Inc., , : *420 “The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” In reviewing the record where a directed verdict has been granted, , : “It is well settled that a motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of all competent evidence introduced by the party opposing the motion, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Byrns v. Riddel, Incorporated
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ofstedahl v. City of Phoenix 628 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 111 [p. 206] (I960).” , (emphasis added).
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
(reversing a directed verdict based on the lack of direct evidence that the defective condition producing injury was in being at the time the product left the hands of the seller).
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Definition of ‘Relevant Evidence’ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” , *508 , the Supreme Court said: “By the general rule, evidence is relevant if it has any basis in reason to prove a material fact in issue.
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
: “It is well settled that a motion for a directed verdict admits the truth of all competent evidence introduced by the party opposing the motion, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.
State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Brown v. General Foods Corp. 573 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Brown v. General Foods Corp. 573 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
If, considering all the facts and circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood that reasonable men may reach different conclusions, the question of fact in issue is to be decided by the jury, [citations omitted].”
Downs v. Shouse 501 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Downs v. Shouse 501 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972